Why is Bush asking for even more troops now (another 8,000)? I thought we had won the war?

Question

Nearly 4 years ago Bush said he had won the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989459.stm

Now apparently he wants another 8,000 troops on top of the already 21,500 he has requested.......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2031829,00.html

I hope Bush will be more cautious next time he randomly starts declaring Americans as victors in the wars he starts.

MAHAL - I was concerned actually. So why dont you find out your facts first before you have a go at me. moron.

Answer 1

No, the war hasn't been won yet.

Don't your links say why he is requesting additional troops? Didn't you read them?

Woof.

Answer 2

Because there were 2 wars:
1. conventional Military invasion and conquest of Iraq, the US carried out a text book operation with total victory in a matter of weeks, March to June 2003.
2. Occupation control of Iraq, June 2003 to now, The US totally failed as the politicians lied to the themselves that they had no intention of doing it, they lied to their own Military so they did not plan for it. US Army plans in 2003 were US force levels in Iraq would be down to 20-30,000 troops by October 2003. Partly because the Iraqis after Saddam were assumed to act like the Poles or Czechs after the Soviets went home, form political parties develop a peaceful country and shower the US with profitable contracts, there was no plan for what if they acted like Serbs or Bosnians. Equally the US Army had planned that the UN would provide large numbers of neutral peacekeepers as cannon fodder. The US army planned this way because it was what the US politicians told them to plan for. They were shocked when India said no to sending anyone when they had assumed they would send a Division, the UN said it could round up some peacekeepers to hold the ring if the US went home, the US politicians wanted other countries to provide troops but under total US control, on that basis most said no.

Thus started an occupation and related counter-insurgency war, which the US Army had been told by their politicians not to plan for and that they would never need to do, "We do not do nation-building" IF they had been honest from the beginning that the intention was to conquer and transform Iraq and they were unlikely to get significant contributions of manpower from elsewhere then they would have had to convince the US people as to why they were doing it but if they did the US is big enough and rich enough to support an occupation force large enough to keep Iraq peaceful, while you transform it into a different form of country.

If the US Military had planned in 2003 for an occupation force of 250,000 staying for 10 years, it could have done it but it would have expanded the size of the Army immediately, bought more equipment for counter insurgency operations, body armour and HUMVEES not Fighter Jets and Navy Submarines or Destroyers.

If the US had convinced the American people it was the right thing to do, then the US could have planned and spent towards that and would have been successful but the problem was the lie that conquest and Imperial control was not the aim and so no one planned for it until far far too late.

Answer 3

Does Vietnam ring any bells here people? Or is it just me?

It's not as easy as it looks destroying a country and trying to find sympathy from it's broken population. You call these guys terrorists that attack American troops in Iraq, but if someone invaded the US and killed those dear to you in the name of "Liberty" wouldn't you hate them a little bit to? People dont' like to be conquered, or occupied. Some of you may think you're doing Iraq a favour by deposing it's dictator... but who exactly gave America the moral authority? We're talkin about a country whose every leader has gone to war, and is actually founded on a doctrine of Manifest Destiny conquering and killing Native people.
If America is so interested in supporting democracy worldwide how do you explain allying with Saudi Arabia? Perhaps a double standard. So really, it's ok to be a dictator as long as you support America's corporate needs... but if you don't you better watch out right?

As for the War... it's really unfortunate Bush got us into this mess... particularly over a lie. Is it more patriotic to support a war in which you know you're the culprit.. or is it more patriotic to question and change things. Neo-Conservativism isn't the American way, the pursuit of justice is. As far as I'm concerned Bush is the true terrorist.

Answer 4

We did win the war. Saddam's government fell by our hand. The mistakes began with overestimating the reaction of the Iraqi people. We failed to take into account the effects of 30 years of brutalization in Saddam's police state.

The total goat-rope that is happening now is securing the peace. Without that, another war will quickly develop and overturn any government that is in place. The troops are needed (how many times must this be explained?) to secure the areas the insurgents are cleared out of. This prevents them from returning after the US forces leave the area. By doing this, every district in the Baghdad area can be cleared and pacified. That would give the Iraqi government a little breathing room and some time to get enough troops trained to secure and police themselves. Why does it take so long to train them, you ask? Because they are totally incompetent as soldiers and always have been. Even training provided by one of the top militaries in the world takes time when you have very little to work with.

Answer 5

The war on terror heavily isn't over however the war in Iraq could be gained. that's a win while the Iraqi's take finished duty for his or her very very own protection. We in all probability wont deliver each and all the troops abode for a protracted time yet we are able to deliver maximum of them very quickly i wish. Like wars interior the previous we incredibly much continually leave a smaller group of squaddies merely as a deterrent. What we actual choose is an mindset replace that have been given us into this concern interior the 1st place.

Answer 6

We did win the War...and in very short order I must add. Stabilizing the country so it can run itself is a totally different matter. It doesn't help when neighboring countries are constantly sending wacko's and weapons in to keep it destabilized until Americans get tired / bored and go home. And no, Patois, it was never about Oil. You must have some secret Intel the rest of us are not privy to getting. Sounds like you are a contender for the funny farm. Mahal, the 8,000 additional troops are needed in order to beef up security in some of the villages that are militant strongholds. There is a bit of a difference between sailors and soldiers. In this arena, sailors are not as likely to be in a great deal of harms way like the soldiers with their boots on the ground. However, ALL of our American Military Forces deserve our Support and our Respect. Without them, our America would not stand for long. Hats off also to the countries that have enough balls to assist in the war on terror.

Answer 7

It now has nothing to do with weather we have won the war or not. Now we are rebuilding a country. We MUST get rid of all the bad guys and we havent ever touched the serface with this.. remember we were in germany for how long.. Come on now people.

Answer 8

1. i don't think anyone wins, not really
2. the "war" in iraq was about petrol
3. weapons of mass destruction? they must've been invisible and undetectable
4. more soldiers have died in the post 9/11 war than the victims of 9/11
5. bush should lay off the sauce

Answer 9

Why are you concerned about the 8000 troops he anounced and not the 25000 sailors in that new battle group?

Were you this concerned in 2004 when you found out that he "surged" 30,000 extra troops for the Sunni Triangle?

Answer 10

You should pay more attention to the news. The organized resistance collapsed quickly, but the terrorists are hard at work trying to get the US to leave so that they can continue their nefarious activities unimpeded.