Or is it just more of the same on a larger scale? We are still trying to train the Iraqi's to take care of themselves.. we are still trying to hold of insurgents at the same time.. it's the same plan with more boots.. I don't support more of the same.. Give me something different that looks like it actually might work and I might support it.. even if it takes our troops being there.. but why try more of the same policy that hasn't worked for 4 years?
2007-04-02 08:17:45 · 12 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
cappi you should allow emails!! :)
anyway, I've stated in the past that a large part of the problem is that it IS the US there.. and that we should get someone like.. oh say Pakistan.. to take over the policing.. they make an ally with a major oil producing nation.. the problems that have arisen due to it being us there fade quickly, we save face as coming up with a viable solution.
I would have to problem leaving troops there to work towards that and even leaving a few after to help train.. so long as someone else was doing the policing.
2007-04-02 08:32:31 · update #1
Who knows? We have far too many armchair generals on here...for and against the surge.
I would agree, however, that more of the same is futile. The problem in Iraq, as I understand it, is that there is no progress forward...the troops have no time or ability to move the cause of democracy forward as the insurgents continue to attack. There are limitless supplies of these insurgents/terrorists - from all over the globe - who are only too happy to join in the killing spree...and America just doesn't have the resources (financial or manpower) to defeat them. So if the increased troops are merely going over to fight the insurgents...then I think we are leading these young men and women into a slaughter...
2007-04-02 08:47:27 · answer #1 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It actually follows the Iraq study group.
The group had said that more troops are should be assigned to training the Iraqi security forces to get them going.
While it said it didnt necessairily mean that more troops should be brought to Iraq, the decsion was left up to the commanders in Iraq and thats what they called for.
The strategy however is changing. Before it was go into an area, clear out the insurgents, then move on. Once they left, the insurgents would just come back. They didnt have the forces to keep in the places they just cleared.
This new on however has them leaving security forces in place.
You should read the Iraq Study Group report. It's very interesting.
2007-04-02 08:23:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A different word for the same action. I think that it will have a positive effect in the short term. I believe the inevitable is that the Iraqi police and military will have to fight these insurgents with out us. My question is are we now the magnet for the Radical Islamic insurgents? If we stay will they keep coming faster and in higher numbers until they out number the Citizens of Iraq?
2007-04-02 08:42:52 · answer #3 · answered by Mother 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't more of the same.
It is strengthening our ability to train, to fight and to stabilize Bagdad.
And it is working!!! And we haven't even reached the full build up numbers yet.
And it is working!!!
And, with due respect, I don't believe you. I don't believe you would support anything to do with our military presence in Iraq.
You're cleverly phrased question implies genuine concern, but the tone gives you away. There is nothing the US could do over there militarily that you would support.
Am I wrong?
OK, if indeed I am wrong...post another question on here stating a possible military position of your own choosing that you would support, EXCEPT withdrawal.
Gotcha!
2007-04-02 08:26:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
More of the same... larger scale. Believe me, Bush did not wake up this morning in the land of reality and suddenly realize that we have to do something differently because what we've been clinging to for four years isn't working. He's still banging away at a rusty nail.
2007-04-02 08:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
More of the same on a larger scale.I'm still puzzled if Bush actually believes this will change anything or if he's really that cynical that more young Americans have to die so he can safe face and doesn't have to be the one to pull out;
2007-04-02 08:32:15 · answer #6 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How are they going to take care of themselves when Bush has our troops and secret mercenaries killing as many as they can get away with.
It's a "surge" all right. A surge of death and destruction. Under a different name.
But the same..
2007-04-02 08:27:23 · answer #7 · answered by rare2findd 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, it's just more target practise for the insurgents.
2007-04-02 08:23:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it sends an unequivocal message to our enemy, popular sentiment be damned, full speed ahead.
2007-04-02 08:21:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's more of a lurch than a surge.
2007-04-02 08:24:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋