...when he said that the Dems Iraq proposal was "undermining the authority of the military" when all the Generals agreed that a troop surge was not the answer? Could he simply be referring only to himself (as the "commander guy")?
2007-05-04 05:57:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes sir!!!!
2007-05-04 06:09:18 · answer #1 · answered by Charlie Bravo 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You really need to get your facts straight. The the majority of the generals in Iraq agree that a surge is needed. There are just a few that disagree, and some of them are even retired. He was referring to the democrats who are trying to undermine what our military leaders are doing in Iraq.
2007-05-04 14:16:44 · answer #2 · answered by Erica R 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off you are completely wrong. The Generals were calling for more troops on the ground. Now as far as the proposal, it called for a date, not a particular result, to remove the troops. Why would you continue to fight hard to win if you knew you were just going to be sent home by a certain date no matter what the outcome? Why would the insurgents waste valuable fighters attacking the US and Iraqi troops now when they could wait out that end date and then attack only the Iraqi troops?
2007-05-04 13:13:38 · answer #3 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The democrats in the Senate and the House and all of the Generals want more troops on the ground, not
the other way round!!
2007-05-04 14:32:46 · answer #4 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Himself and the troops, especially the dead ones and their families. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. If the U.S. pulls out, the dead troops blood will be on our heads. Their blood won't be worthwhile and we will leave the innocent Iraqis to fight a war we unexpectedly escalated. The oil in Iraq will fall to the wrong people and thus, give them enough revenue to endeavor in NUCLEAR EXPERIMENTS. The Dems will then wish they'd listened to the President.
Geraldo.
2007-05-04 13:15:12 · answer #5 · answered by katolitoli 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
you are leaving one piece of the puzzle out. while some of the generals said troop build up was not the answer, which I agree, they all say that announcing troop pull out is not a good idea. I am not for more troops going in unless you are going to go in there and just get the job done but that is kind of hard when you are dealing with a civil war element in place.
The problem is trying to weed out Al Quaida from the warring Suni's and Shiite's. A Q is probably playing on both of those two sides for their own selfish reasons.
It really is a knotted mess and civilians as well as military people are getting caught in the middle of it all. This is a no win situation.
2007-05-04 13:09:08 · answer #6 · answered by Moose 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The democrats iraq proposal has nothing to do with the surge, it was a timeline for withdrawing. when you tell the enemy when you will be leaving, it tends to undermine the authority of the military. I hope you feel educated.
2007-05-04 13:05:12 · answer #7 · answered by matt_precht 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is what happen when you have a sick president in the White House and still supported by a 37% minority of sick, coward and evil mentally handicapped criminal voters in the conservative Republican pool.
2007-05-04 23:24:27 · answer #8 · answered by Tia T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a military thing, cowards wouldn't understand.
2007-05-04 14:18:18 · answer #9 · answered by Kevin A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, what are you talking about? The Generals are the ones who said they didn't have enough people to do what needed to be done.
2007-05-04 13:09:05 · answer #10 · answered by Curt 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
He is referring to himself.
2007-05-04 13:01:09 · answer #11 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋