Is Bush's 'Surge' Strategy in Iraq just Putting More US Soldiers' Lives in Danger?

Question

Increasing the number of troops in Iraq is leaving many more troops exposed to explosive devices and the possibility of being captured as with the three soldiers who have been taken by insurgents. Is it going to succeed in bringing security to Iraq or is it the last desperate roll of the dice by Bush?

Answer 1

My son is an Officer & he says the increase in troops is the only way to win. He says we are not increases them fast enough, that a complete domination of the terrorists is the only way to defeat them.

The war can not be run by polls of uninformed people. We have never seen the Intelligence reports so we have no clue as to how to win the war. I believe in letting the military make the correct decisions & that includes the Commander in Chief. The Constitution never said the people could run the military or country by polls

Answer 2

Surge, Smurge....

Nothing will stop the violence. It will only increase as more and more screwball wannabes head for Iraq to join the insurgents in the fun.

We need to get out - need to bring our young soldiers home. They are not accomplishing a thing even though they are working their hearts out and their lives are in danger every minute of every day of their existence.

Congress will soon cut the funding for Bushies little war....that will put an end to that.

Personally, I would like to see Bush impeached and removed from office. Then have to stand before the world court in the Hague and be charged with crimes against humanity. The death and destruction he has cause is more than the terrorists around the world could ever hope for. Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world.

Answer 3

Give me a break. It is the job of the military to kill people and break things. In the process they are exposed to the possibility of being hurt, maimed and even die. It is a hazardous job and our troops are well aware of this. That is why it always amazes me to hear Lib’s say “We support our troop by bringing them home out of harms way.” Or some other such drivel. It only serves to undermine morale and provide aid and comfort to our enemies.

Ultimately only the Iraqis can provide security in their country. It is our job to do everything we can to give them a decent chance at it. In the end it will be good for them and good for us. IF we leave before we accomplish that, it will be bad for us and unspeakably horrible for the Iraqi people.

Answer 4

Surge or no surge, this made up war will be disaster from start to finish. A year from now, after wasting another few hundreds of billions of dollars, Bush will retreat because of a near total lack of support from GOP lawmakers. What a Waste! Just proves that anything Bush touches turns to sh*t.

Answer 5

Absolutely it will put more troops at risk if for no other reason than more troops are required to do the surge. That said, remember that the "surge" was largely sponsored and brought on by Bush's critics -who insisted we didn't have enough troops!

Go figure.

Answer 6

No. Not having enough troops for back up is dangerous. Having few troops with no backup is like giving a death sentence to them.

Answer 7

It became into incorrect from the commencing up, mismanaged horribly for years, and we on no account did locate the real motives for the invasion, however the neocon thinkers in the back of Bush who deliberate and offered this difficulty (extra like forced it on anybody) have notably lots reported it became into for everlasting bases in Iraq, for get right of entry to to the oil, all of this "transcending the situation of eliminating Saddam from means," in accordance to Richard Perle, twin Israeli citizen and between the architects of the warfare, now residing in France, having left the sinking deliver like the rat he's.

Answer 8

Of course it will, but the theory is that the increased troops will eventully lower the level of insurgancy.

I would suggest that we give it a chance.

Answer 9

Yes.

And it is very unlikely to accomplish much. Other than to drag out this fiasco another 6 months or so, until the Republicans in Congress mutiny against Bush, in order to get re-elected in '08.

At this point, it seems like Bush will do anything to ensure that this fiasco ends on the next President's watch. That way the blame can be spread more evenly.

Answer 10

Last desperate roll of the dice, for the original loyal Bushie, I suppose he is not satisfied enough of the present rate of U.S. troops sacrificing their lives for the leader/decider/commander-in-chief.