So now Bush wants another 6-7,000 troops adding to 21,500 originally planned? What will this "surge" do ...?

Question

anyway? Just more innocent deaths

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday. In January, Bush said he would send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. England said 6,000 to 7,000 support troops will be needed to back up the larger combat force.There are about 10,000 soldiers in Iraq now associated with the escalation, according to Lt. Col. Carl Ey, an Army spokesman. In all, there are about 140,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq

(..& about 50 thous. are support aren't they?)
So, Bush is cutting it rather thin don't you think? The article also tells us that the "increase in troops is expected to peak in May."
I imagine that means even more deaths on either side. The madness must end. Why are we still in Iraq anyway? Despite what Bush tells us, these Iraqi factions are better off fighting each other WITHOUT the United States.

Answer 1

since were in a mess in Iraq and none will help us, we should leave nato and the u.n. and put those troops in Iraq

Answer 2

Both the troops and the equipmnt are getting exhausted. He has only a year or so to come up with a win. It's like the German Offensive in 1918, a last gasp.

The real problem is, there aren't enough troops left to rotate the ones who are over there. Even the draft would not help us get more troops quickly enough. This is the worst piece of shortsighted strategy I've ever seen. It's a real shame none of the hundreds of Generals sitting around the Pentagon are speaking up.

Answer 3

in case you ever took precalculus or another math classification which covers homes of applications, you tips on the thank you to verify the area of the function. between the pink flags to look out for is once you divide by 0. on your expression, while x = 3, the denominator is 0. subsequently, the area is each and every selection beside 3. regrettably, the selection you attempt to plug in (x = 3) is the only selection that doesn't paintings in this function. to verify this common hand, you0 can graph this function on a TI-80 3. in case you zoom in on the threshold of the graph at x = 3, you will see that there is a sparkling spot there! it particularly is as a results of the fact, as stated above, there in simple terms isn't a cost of the expression at x = 3. you are able to say, properly it feels like the respond could be 6, watching the graph. this theory of what the respond "could be" is what limits are all approximately. The values of the function on the left and good of x = 3 all go in direction of 6 as you get closer and closer. So we are saying the shrink as x is going to 3 is 6. So in spite of the reality that it particularly is not technically the respond, 6 is your suited determination. 0 isn't probable suited in any experience. the very suited answer is to declare that the expression is undefined at x = 3. This concern illustrates why 0/0 is pronounced as indeterminate. in this concern, 0/0 in a fashion equals 6. the thought that 0/0 can equivalent something is particularly the essence of calculus.

Answer 4

I think if the true numbers were revealed you would be in shock. I think Bush in his beady little brain is planing an attack on Iran. He has made several moves in the last few months that is troubling to say the least he has moved another Carrier group to the Gulf, he has ordered the stategic oil reserves doubled, and he has upped the rhetoric in Iraq against Iran. Much the way that he did when building up for his illegal war against the Iraqi people. I am wary and do not trust him. He is hell bent on sparking the third world war.

Answer 5

Bush is a MORON...he had so many people telling him about 9/11. The central intellegence agency, for example, told him about it too. He tried to connect saddam hussein and osama bin laden so that he could invade the middle east when osama was the only one behind it. He WANTED to go into the middle east so he could get an advantage in oil...he even said once"we're gonna get those f-ing Iraqis". Bush has and IQ of a duck. he even said " I belive that the human being and fish can co-exist peacefully". People say that he is the worst president in the history of the United States...I belive it with all my heart. How long have we been in Iraq? Far too long. Of course we can't pull out because that would ruin everything but we need to change th strategy or do something better...He even blew up frogs with firecrackers when he was younger. He never was in the army. His father is dissaproving of what he is doing, and he is acting suprised about Walter Reed. He even had interviewers in there and told them to interview only people who were willing to say positive things...

Answer 6

What will the surge do?
The plan as i understand it is to bolster the current troops in Baghdad initially and ramp up the security sweep in an attempt to remove the extremists from the equation, leaving only moderates on both the Shiite and Sunni side who will actually work together to form a stable government.
There is no guarantee it will work. The good side is the extremists seem to be blowing themselves up as fast or faster than we can find and capture or shoot them and hopefully the combined elimination will be faster than their recruitment efforts.

And yes, undoubtedly there will be more innocent deaths.

Answer 7

it will do nothing, clearly bush needs lessona from senator byrd who said

Long-time opponent of the war in Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd, recently remarked about Bush’s troop surge plan:

“At the outset of this war, the Bush administration believed, apparently, that democracy could be exported through the barrel of a gun. That belief was wrong then; it is wrong today. Twenty thousand more troops won’t make it right.”

Answer 8

no idea but my question is why 21,000? is that all we have left to spare??? the war should've never happened but the fact of the matter is that we are there, and if we just throw up our hands and say peace out, then how does that make us look to iran or worse yet, north korea?? we cant afford to look like we "lost" this war and yet we have been there too long. so what to do? if we send more troops in, then we are taking over more jobs that their military should be doing. i think that the longer we out number, the longer they are gonna let us do their work and fight their fights. we should have one u.s. soldier to every two iraqi soldiers or at least an even 1:1. we cant expect them to be all excited to fight for their country like we are so really what options do we have????????

Answer 9

If we don't stop the sectarian killing, everything we have worked for will be for nothing and over 3,000 of our soldiers will have died in vain.

This surge is working and, yes, there will be more deaths. The entire reason for the push, now is to have everyone in place by the time the weather gets good and the attacks increase. This will give us the advantage we need to patrol the streets, keep the bad guys underground, and work with the population. By the time the bad guys resurface, the people will know what it's like to work together and won't want what the insurgents and the militia have to offer.

THAT'S how you fight an insurgency.

Answer 10

It will cause more deaths on both sides, prolong an unjust invasion, damage US reputation further, split the American people further, divert billions of dollars towards killing, that should instead be going to fix domestic problems, like hunger poverty, New Orleans, .....need I go on?