Should the government send more troops to Iraq?

Question

The Australian government

Answer 1

Once the troops from the surge is in place, no.

However, we must be given the ability to open our ROE (Rules of Engagement) to strike at the bad guys when the resources we have. We need to be tolerant of a little collateral damage and force the Iraqi government to come clean with it's support of the Sadrists who are calling for the killing of Sunni government officials and Coalition Forces.

Answer 2

Please specify, there isn't one government that has sent troops to Iraq....

OK, Australian...

Depends what kind of troops. The SAS and Commandos are the only effective troops because they are beating them at there own game. But they are already overstretched. Reconstruction forces are doing a great job rebuilding, more of those would be great, but they require protection, so that's more troops still.

I think we should consider Australian Federal Police to be sent to the green zones, that will free up Combat troops to move tho the red zones. Also the AFP have the training necessary to handle the crime rate. The soldiers just aren't taught that. But the AFP would only be in the green zones assisting the Iraqi Police.

Answer 3

Id start with Iran before Iran invades. The sec we pull out of Iraq thats whats going to happen. Its inevitable. Their Oil hungry and Saddam has been their only blockade. Iraq is like a open playing field at the moment. Id put some UN peace keepers in Tehran and a carrier or two off their coast. If that doesnt work then have our best stirke forces right on their border waiting.

Answer 4

The Australian government should send equipment to the Iraqi military and police instead. In the end it's about getting the Iraqis trained and equipt to hand their own security. Already one third of the Iraqi forces are fully operational and on their own. The problems with the U.S. congress and the already "need" for the U.S. military to keep resupplying their own troops have and will continue have a problem with the Iraqi forces being equipt. The Iraqi forces lack vehicals, armor, ammo etc.

Answer 5

Your question is really 2 questions. Is the Iraq War winnable? If so, how many troops are needed to secure all of Iraq?

In Iraq, we are going up against a determined enemy that hates the government we're trying to impose there and is fighting to resist it. They believe that they are fighting for their own independence from our troops. They are determined not to give in. Therefore, to win in Iraq, we would need to send sufficient troops to police the entire country constantly. Because we are creating more enemies throughout the entire Middle East every day that we stay in Iraq and because the enemy would leave Iraq and go to another country if we controlled all of Iraq, we would need to send enough troops to secure the entire Middle East. The only way we could get anywhere near enough troops would be to institute military slavery, also called the draft. Such an action would eliminate any potential moral leg we have to stand upon and lead to disinterested troops who would abuse the Iraqis (our volunteer Army has tortured Iraqis at Abu Gharad). Even then, we would have insufficient troops to win this war.

We're stuck in a Vietnam. We've got a determined people that hates us and refuses to accept defeat. They attack us using guerrila tactics.

Since it is clear we cannot win this war, we should remove all the troops immediately. The case for the troops staying is usually that its gonna be a mess if we leave, but its a mess now. Another argument is that the troops who died in this war have died in veign, but if we stay more troops will die in veign and we still won't win.

There is no way we can make things any better in Iraq. If we stay, more Americans will die and we will go nowhere. If we leave, the Iraqis will be able to settle the problem themselves.

The one thing the pro-war people get right is that timetables and benchmarks would be bad. A timetable would basically be admitting that we're gonna lose, but allowing more troops to die before we do so, which is morally repulsive. If we set benchmarks, that doesn't mean that the Iraqi government is going to pass them and it is most likely to fail, unless they're meaningless and used for propaganda to continue the war.

The only people who benefit from continuing the Iraq War are the Islamists we're fighting against (who get more otherwise reasonable people to join their ranks) and the companies that make military equipment.

To end the war gradually is a morally repulsive political solution. To continue the war forever would be equally repulsive and only desirable to Islamists and the military-industrial complex.

Answer 6

I believe we should. Not only have we abandoned them once (after the Gulf War) we risk giving the fanatics control of another country (e.g., Iran). If the fanatics have both Iran and Iraq, they will have enough power/pressure to force the other Arab nations to follow.

Answer 7

The only persons that can answer this question is the military Commanders in Iraq. Everything else is speculation.

As for me, I would rather fight the terrorist in Iraq today, then leave it for my children to do it later.

Answer 8

You mean the Australian Government? N-O, enough already!

Answer 9

We dont really need more...just untie our fuggin hands...The ROE is so restrictive we may as well be using nerf guns. We have the people to do the Job...just get the press and politicians to let us.

Answer 10

We should Arm all the Prison Gangs and drop them on the Afghan border. They will know what to do to the terrorists.
If we cant do that then we should untie our troupes hands and let the Fascist's have it.