Generals: Troops need to stay in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_troops;_ylt=AhVqeGYoMR6mK29vQG8pK0xvzwcF
U.S. military commanders said Friday the troop buildup in Iraq must be maintained until at least next summer and they may need as long as two years to ensure parts of the country are stable.
The battlefield generals' pleas for more time come in the face of growing impatience in the United States and a push on Capitol Hill to begin withdrawing U.S. troops as soon as this fall.
2007-07-20 21:49:49 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Unfortunately, the idiots in Congress feel they know more about military operations than their Generals do. So it also was in Vietnam, and we saw the end result of that. And the same will occur in Iraq if we withdrawl too soon.
Battlefield decisions are best to be left to those trained and experts in that field. Congress needs to butt out.
2007-07-20 21:54:50 · answer #1 · answered by C J 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
The Generals but is Iraq somewhere where we should be in the first place? I think the answer is no to that.
Generals should be able to conduct war. I think they did a bad job standing up to Bush and Rummy when they clearly needed more troops for the occupation and yet did not make the case (privately or publicly).
Ultimately our constitution (the one Bush says is just a goddamn piece of paper) gives the President Commander in Chief powers and the military ultimately answers to civilians, regardless of how bad the results have been in several wars (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Civil War).
2007-07-21 05:58:50 · answer #2 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
For some dumba$$ reason congress seams to think they can micromanage a war. They need to stay out of it and let the generals do their job. Throw out the rules of engagement and fight a battle the way the troops have been trained to do. If the politicians would keep out of it, this thing would have been over long before now.
2007-07-21 06:18:07 · answer #3 · answered by doctdon 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yea I kind of wish they listened to generals before starting the war. Like that general who argued we needed way way more soldiers than planned, but was ignored by Rumsfeld and Bush.
Seem like somebody is always over ruling generals on the ground. Whether it be Bush or Congress.
2007-07-21 05:19:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No war must be fought by politicians; it is sure to fail.
That, of course, ignores the irony that administrators and politicians started this illegal invasion of Iraq, to begin with, and allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to flourish in Waziristan... So much for JUSTICE FOR 9/11!
2007-07-21 07:00:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember, Chief, those generals were chosen because they agreed with the Administration's position. You should be asking whether Yes-men or Congress knows more about the war. I would say neither of them know.
A strong, independent military commander is required, and, that commander needs a free hand.
2007-07-21 05:52:14 · answer #6 · answered by James S 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The generals, obviously. The liberal Democrats in Congress are just following their liberal base. The soldiers in the theater know best and, disregarding the liberal media, are actually making a difference and gaining ground against the insurgency. Regardless of how you feel about the reasons we went into Iraq, the hard truth is that we are now in a war with Islamist extremists who will definately fill the power vacuum if we leave.
2007-07-21 05:18:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The war was begun politically on a lie by a group of wealthy elites (Democrat and Republican) who were persuing U.S. imperialist ambitions in the Middle East. Those decisions were hardly democratic, but the need to offer the public a plausible lie revealed that at least a nod to democracy was needed.
On the other hand, yielding the continuation of the war to the decisions of the generals is a completely undemocratic action and is a method employed by the ruling elite in order to continue their imperialist ambitions in spite of overwhelming condemnation of those ambitions by the public. The ruling elite place their preferred generals in power and then usurp all democracy by demanding their advice be followed -- that is, until their advice no longer corresponds with the wishes of the ruling elite. At that point they are replaced in favor of ones who do and the scam continues.
2007-07-21 05:36:35 · answer #8 · answered by Trevor S 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think most supported the war in Iraq until it became a civil war. Don't you think that Iraqis should solve their own problems instead of us solving it? we did our part...toppled Saddam and didn't find WMD's therefore its time for the troops to come home. If Iraqis do not want peace then thats up to them.
2007-07-21 07:00:21 · answer #9 · answered by 2012 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Congress is trying to doit again in order to save there yellow belly azzes they want to play general and decide how things should be when none of them have a clue on what is going on over in Iraq Leave it to the Democrats to screw something else up just to save face i wonder what would happen if they ever stood by one of there decisions like the Iraq war in the first place that was ran by Democrats
2007-07-21 05:13:44 · answer #10 · answered by rick k 3 · 5⤊ 3⤋