Bringing home our troops before the war is finished. What does this tell our troops?

Question

My brother spent 2006 in Iraq laying his life on the line daily for our mission there. I know the costs our soldiers and their families are paying to complete this mission. The timeline you are fighting for is telling them that it does not matter what they sacrifice today nor what they have sacrificed and endured the past years of this war. It says that no matter what happens, we're calling it quits on x date! Help me understand: How does this support our troops? How does this support what they are fighting and dying for? Why are the requests of our military
commanders ignored regarding this timeline? If winning this war is not important, why not bring all our troops home today? This timeline tells me that all my brother fought for and experienced the horrors of war for was for nothing. If we (America)are going to quit on a timeline rather than a victory line, don't spend another life. Bring them all home now!

To those of you who say I should be asshamed for wanting them there... I am not saying that at all. I think it's stupid to make a time line and wait. Did you not read the whole question?

Answer 1

This is going to sound cold but it is meant not to... We should NOT be worrying about the Troops' feelings, we should be worrying about the cost of this war to our economy, to our standing in the world, to our deficits accrued by a prolonged occupation (with no financial windfall from this), and the possibility that this might actually strengthening and recruiting terrorist actions across the world... we should be thinking of the state of the nation as a whole, not the Troops... the Troops are part of the nation, not the whole picture.

Personally, I think that time tables are bad BUT our leadership has given us no other option. We have been banging our heads for years with little progress (if any) and this occupation is increasing in its costs while we are borrowing money from nations like China to support this. We can not continue this, at this point, without time tables. The Pentagon and this administration has shown that they have no clear political plan and are only continuing the "whack-a-mole" approach that they tried in 2005... something has to give, this can not continue.

I am sorry for your brother's suffering and frustration and I can empathize. But without benchmarks and accountability for failure then this is just going to go on and on for years to come.

Answer 2

I can understand your point in it's entirety, however, you are failing to see one important point. What if there is no end? Does that mean your grandchildren will be sent to Iraq to continue to fight this war? If not, then what should be the limit? 5 years? 10 Years? 100 years? We can go on forever. Especially, when the president changes the roll of the military. The purpose of the US military is to fight and win wars. not to be politicans, or diplomats or anything else. The military went in and did what they were supposed to. Now, get them home and send in the diplomats and the politicans to take over. Ever wonder how fast the war would end if the President was forced to move the oval office to Baghdad? The military is the military. They are told to do something, and they go and do it, to the best of their ability. They are just being asked to do more and more and if the government wants to give it's money to their pals in Hallaburton or whomever, instead of paying for safer vehicles for the troops, the troops aren't going to complain...even though their lives depend on it.
A good example would be any fire department in the US. They go to a house fire and put it out. But instead of leaving, their fire chief, tells them that now they have to demolish the remainder of the house. They do that too. Then the fire chief changes their roll again, and say that have to build a foundation for a new home, oh, and while they are at it, design a new home, as well as make all of the blue prints for it. And you know the next step will be...build the house. The fire department has a job and they do it well, but they are not designed for nor trained to do all jobs, just because they are told to do so.

Answer 3

Holli, I know that bringing the troops home before the new Iraqi government can protect the country and has some stability, means that we, Americans, are losers running home with tail between legs. That's not who I am, not your family either.

When the Democrats cut the funding for South Vietnam, our troops had been home over a year. South Vietnam was over-run by the Communist North. It was a bloodbath there, with our former allies being killed. The violence spread from Vietnam to Laos and into Cambodia. Remember Pol Pot?
Our "peace'' party caused that genocide. They have blood all over themselves in my eyes.

I have watched Lebanon be invaded and ravaged too. Do you know that the Marines that were there in Beirut had to disarm at the gate? They were disarmed and couldn't defend themselves when that truck bomb came in.

I am so tired of stupid politicians who won't let our guys win and come home after doing a good job. I am so sick of the people here who say our military b[people are "butchers" and that kind of lie, too.

So what is Ms Pelosi saying to Bashar Assad in Syria? We won't fund a war against our county no matter who you attack or what you do? Why can't we leave her there.

Answer 4

wow some of you people completly missed the point of the question i agree with holli though i must say i want to do my part over there fight for my country and yes it is still for our country and im sick of all you armchair generals that know nothing about war let alone how to win one and maybe if you actually paid a little bit of attention almost every report coming in since this security sweep started is that is getting better or how about the fact that the majority of Iraq is actually doing alot better now then under Sadam its the few spots of trouble that make the whole country seem like hell i mean its like trying to base our whole country off the really bad parts where the gang violence and murders are through the roof or that on average 16,000 people die each year from drunk drivers wow thats over 4 times the number of troops lost in what just over 4 years im not saying that it makes there deaths any less meaningful but if you look at our country like that then damn were a horrible place to live

Answer 5

I wasn't even going to answer this question at first, I just like to hear other peoples opinions on the subject. But after reading some of the responces I felt that I should.

The war in the middle east is far from over. It is a war on terrorism. The only way to win that war is to kill all of the terrorists. If one survives then he attacks us like they did on 9-11. then he wins his little war on us.

I feel that they are just telling us that we fought and some of us died for nothing. If we are going to have a war on terrorism then we need to atlest be doing something about it. Pulling all of the troops back to the states is not helping with that war. But it is also a war that we will never win. There will always be someone that believes something different and will stand up and give his life for it. That is all that is happening now. They believe we are infedels and we all deserve to die. Most Americans believe that all of them are terrorists and they deserve to die. The only difference is that we are from a different place and our government spends money more freely. I wouldn't say richer because we are billions of dollars in debt. But these are just some of my thoughts on the subject. You can take it how you want, but I know what we did out there. And I know that WE will take care of each other because most people reading this will never understand it.

Answer 6

Military commanders take a pledge to support their commander, President Bush. So, IMHO, the military commanders are biased when it comes to winning the war. They are following their supreme commander's wishes and orders. I personally believe circumstances have changed since we first entered this war. We were lead to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. None were found. If somebody invaded our country--the United States, wouldn't we unite and fight to retain our freedom? So why do all these factions continue to fight each other? Why don't they pull together and all get along so we can leave? Our military is spread too thin. Troops are doing multiple deployments and I know of soldiers who do not want to return. They might not feel free to speak for themselves, so I will speak for them. I think we have already lost enough lives over there. It's time to bring them all home.

Answer 7

It's a legitamate question, but I believe we are supporting the troops far more by brining them home rather than sending them on their 3rd tours in Iraq where they are just babysitters for a civil war that we should not be responsible for.

We liberated the Iraquis and they have chosen to use that freedom to indiscriminately kill each other. Why should we allow our troops to keep fighting and dying and kicking in doors and fighting both sides when our administration has no goal, our military would be more useful elsewhere, and the Iraquis obviously don't want us or trust us.

I say let them have bloody anrachy, and bring our troops home and rotate a smaller number of them to patrol the border and flush out the Al Qaeda ops who are spreading in Iraq rather than shrinking.

We are fomenting terrorism by staying. Let's keep Iran out of Iraq, Syria and Suadi Arabia out of Iraq, bring home the troops who were misused to fulfill Bush's empty-headed dream of a puppet democracy in the mideast and focus on more important things, like the growing numbers of Al qaeda in Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, and the Philippenes. We have the best military in the world, and it is spinning its tires in the mud.

Bush doesn't support the troops. there's no war to win, just violence with no end or clear purpose. Let's use the military to fight, and leave nation building to the nations themselves.

Answer 8

With all respect to you and your family, who can truthfully say that this "war" will truly be over. It sounds as if the Iraqi people do not want to have foreign troops there. How can you help your neighbor if he keeps telling you to mind your own business and get out? It looks as if the Middle East will never have peace. How long should the troops remain there under those circumstances?

Answer 9

It has nothing to do with "supporting" the troops.

It has to do with power, and who is going to have that power in government. It has nothing to do with national security, or what is in the nations interest.

It has to do with basically people who get voted into office, and whether or not they get the funding they want to use for their constituency. If they are successful most of the time they get re-elected.

Thats why I hate professional politicians. Part-time politicians are the best.

There is a book written by Robert Hienlien called "Starship Troopers" the name sounds goofy but it is an excellent book (do not see this movie btw). In this book the government of the future found a way to have only politicians who had the ability put the nations interests over their own desire to get re-elected. By this they said only people who had served in combat could vote, or hold office.

I dont know about voting, but I WISH that you couldnt get elected to office here unless you had served in the military, preferably in combat. That would just ensure that the people in office are willing to put the nations interest over their own.

The politicians today will do anything to get re-elected, they are like a crack-head running to the dope man with no money..use your imagination.

Answer 10

Business as usual. ThePersian Gulf... a prime example unto itself. Scharzkopf and Powell wanted to press on to Baghdad the first time around, but, instead, Congress made them return, before the mission was accomplished. It'll be the same, again. Always is. Always will be. Spineless career politicians, with no clue, making our decisions for us.