Why is the Bush Circus increasing troops even though top military brass disagrees?

Question

Gen. John P. Abizaid, until recently the senior commander in the Middle East, insists that the answer to our problems there is not military. "You have to internationalize the problem. You have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he said.

Also Gen. John Abizaid told Congress, "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no." Abizaid explained, "[T]he reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Also, Colin Powell and Gen. Casey don't support escalation. What is the Bush Circus' logic?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/abizaid-mccain-iraq/

Excuse me, Colin Powell DOESN't support a troop surge in Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/17/powell-surge/

Answer 1

Bush can send 250,000 more troops, and it won't help. The USA has lost the battle of hearts and minds in the region.

I agree with military leaders, a diplomatic solution is the only way to bring peace to Iraq.

Answer 2

there is perhaps a factor of stubborness on the area of the Bush administration to get the job performed. There are not any guarantees that both a military boost or international kinfolk will convey forth an end to the themes in Iraq. there is not any crystal ball that has the finest answer and it really is an argument of opinion and infinite debate. As Commander and chief, it really is trees job to make the acceptable decision conceivable from all the obtainable recommendations. It resmbles, yet is in simple terms no longer a circus. The warfare is in simple terms no longer Bush's. it really is a warfare that all of us, as individuals are keen about, like it or no longer. Bush is our elected authorities and he's basically the only which makes a call on what action to take. the decision is one among all individuals, notwithstanding we from time to time don't like it.

Answer 3

There is no logic. He has been disregarding sound advice from the beginning of this war - before it was even a "war". Bush is just Daddy's little brat that SOMEHOW managed to get elected not once but TWICE by riding the coat tails of his father. Now that little brat has declared war and he won't pull out until he has his way. He will not admit that he was wrong from the beginning and now unfortunately there is a situation that cannot be just abandoned. I DO NOT think we need a 'surge' of troops. This is just a last ditch effort to try to achieve something more from the mess that he has created. Thank GOD that the democrats are back in control of the country's purse strings because they won't be funding his tantrums freely. He will be forced in that way to consider alternative strategies that will hopefully bring our brave men and women home ASAP - without just abandoning what little progress was made over seas.

Answer 4

You make the mistake of assuming Bush cares about the situation in Iraq. The troop surge is to create the need for more Congressional funding, thereby the opportunity of more war profiteering thievery by Haliburton and the rest of Bush's cronies. Sorry for the cruel truth, but it's all about the $$$

Answer 5

The Conservatives have for decades believed that we lost Vietnam because the liberals protested and America lost faith in the war. In reality the liberals protested and America lost faith in the war because we had already lost the war.

We were fighting in Vietnam directly or indirectly for twenty years (1954-1974) trying to train a Vietnamese police force and army while taking sides in a civil war.

Conservatives are trying to prove their contention in Iraq, that if they can win in Iraq they will prove they were right in Vietnam too.

But you couldn't fit a water buffalo into a thimble and you can't lead a camel through the eye of a needle.

We propped Communism up during the cold war by spending our troops in Vietnam and we are propping terrorism up now by wasting our troops in Iraq.

Answer 6

There isn't any Bush logic!! He'll make a statement on one day and call himself a liar the next. For example, now he proclaims Tony Blair's pulling out troops is a sign we are winning. To logical (and informed) people it's a trying to win an election strategy (that will not work).

Answer 7

The only "top military brass" that makes any difference are the ones in charge now and THEY are the ones that want to increase the amount of troops. Powell and Casey should calm down and let the ones in charge do their job.

Answer 8

Bush knows he screwed the war up to a fairtheewell. He is hoping he can end the war before he leaves govt and call it a big win:(
Additionally he has too many friends who make a fortune on the war and he needs them when he is done. He and his drunken Veep should do us a favor and resign.

Answer 9

Because Bush's buddies don't make more money if there's no more war!! Cheney's Halliburton couldn't take all of our tax dollars anymore!! These neocons have a "starve the beast" theory. If the money is used for enriching their buddies, it's ok, they don't want any more money left over for social services. They think that if you aren't rich, you don't matter. War is better than helping people.

Answer 10

In short, the Troops doing the fighting want it.

Also, Colin Powell has never said he was against sending troops.

"..you give them eyes but they cannot see"

Try and keep up to date on the Esteemed Mr. Powell.

Your information is close to four months old.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/LOCAL/702230500/-1/ZONES04


And yes, you are excused.