If we added more troops or brought home more troops?

Question

Let's say we added another 50,000 troops. Would that be beneficial?

Let's say we reduced it by 50,000 troops. Would that be beneficial?

Give your reasons for what you believe is the best way to go (in your opinion).

So far I'm very surprised at how civil each of you are towards each other's thoughts in regards to this.

I've grown so sick and tired of people who say how happy it would make the liberals or how happy it would make democrats or republicans.

These six answers are so refreshing to hear. No name calling, no nothing. Just stating what you think.

Thank you for that.

Just to add a little more spice to this question--can we win this conflict (remember, it's not a war anymore) within the next two to three year?

more spice to the question--since we have built a base there, do you believe we have any intentions of leaving?

Answer 1

Bring them all home. They are just targets for muslim crazies. The soldiers deserve better.

If you remember the American Revolutionary War, the Americans set the standard for staying away from superior forces and fighting hit-and-run style. We won. The British gave up and went home. The Iraqi and Al-Qaeda insurgents are doing the same.

Unfortunately, we are in the position of the British.

If we had disarmed their military, guarded the borders, and guarded or removed all ammunition depots, there would be much less trouble. But those things were not done, and we are now reaping and weeping form what we have sown.

Answer 2

Basically, I'm with psychedelic_harry.

I'm sure reducing troops prematurely would be disastrous. There was stability with the dictatorship that is certainly not within reach yet.

One of 2 things is on the horizon: either US troops can help the Iraqi military gain control of the entire country, or the country will splinter into several smaller nations. I have privately wondered why not help set up Kurdish, Assyrian, Shiite, etc autonomous nations in a peaceful way. Would that alleviate some of the civil strife? (I have never voiced this thought before, so wonder what others have to say. Would this even be feasible?)

I am not sure that adding tons of troops would be the answer, though. But I think the military strategists should be free to decide what their needs are.

Answer 3

Add 50,000 more troops, lol, where are they all gonna come from?? You do know the reason for the 30,000 troop reduction is because we simply don't have enough troops to maintain the "surge" level.
Honestly I don't think, no matter how many troops we send, would help the situation at all. Its hard to fight an enemy who never shows their face, so to speak. Unless they actually come out and fight head to head, there's no way of ridding the country from insurgency.

If we were to reduce the toop levle by 50,000, the country would be much less secure, which I think would actually help. Instead of fighting an occupier, the population would have more control over their territories and the soonis would start fighting the shites. Many civilians would die though. One way or another, I think it will end in civil war unless we stay untill the Iraqi military is able to control the country on it's own. The two groups, for whatever reason, simply can't coexist in the same territories. The only way they could co-exist was under the dictatorship of Sadam, but even he was killing the soonies in the thousands.

Answer 4

Adding another 50,000 might not be the best thing. After all, we are really trying to win (please forgive the language) the hearts and mings of Iraqis. Parking a tank in front of every elementry school doens't really advance that goal.

Removing the 50,000 doesn't really help much either. As long as there are missions for them, leave them in place. Much of the problems of the last three years have been not enough troops to follow through.

Really, the best course of action is to let the politicians set a goal, e.g. "A free, democratic, Iraq". And then let the generals with the military experience control the operations, such as adding brigades when needed, or returning them to CONUS early if they are not needed.

And ignore that stuff about 'breaking' the Army. There are more than 50,000 troops in Europe doing nothing. There are more than 50,000 in the western Pacific (Korea, Okinawa, Hawaii) doing nothing. There are a bunch more in CONUS doing nothing.

(and by 'nothing' I mean routine training and other fun garison activities)

The Army and Marines have only about a quarter of their strength in Iraq and Afganistan. If they needed to, they could make a really serious effort with 600,000 troops in a short time.

Answer 5

Adding 50,000 troops to provide constant training and protection of IA and IP has it's distinct advantages in Iraqs long term, it would be the building blocks upon which Iraq would be formed, but on the flip-side it would be detrimental to American armed forces as most soldiers trained to do this work as they've been deployed and redeployed so many times. Don't believe the hype, the troop surge worked, but it has put a strain on the armed forces that cannot be maintained.

Reducing 50,000 troops would most assuredly lead to more casualties, who are you going to take away road clearance teams? medical career field? tactical intelligence? grunts? War is a delicate Eco-system, start removing it's basic necessities and the whole thing collapses

Answer 6

Adding troops helps relieve the ones that are there already on tour. Everybody needs to shift oout and come home, but keep the troops by the numbers. The republicans are worried and want to show America their heart by pulling troops, but that is a political move agenda because what Bush added six months ago was the political trade off.

Answer 7

if we added 50000 troops it may benefit security and allow the iraqi government to speed up their efforts to unite iraq without worrying about getting assasinated all the time.
We could easily send in an extra 50,000 because Americas miltary size is over tens of millions, but the extra 50000 are not really needed at the time because we are seeing improvements and the iraqi army is growing. Bush has already approved troop cuts, due to the fact that things are improving and the iraqi army and security personell are becomeing more controlling of areas in iraq, it has been estimated that we may have a total of about 100000 troops in iraq by the end of next year. and that is a pretty big reduction. we must wait, it takes time to win in this new era. its not like the old days.

Answer 8

Obviously we have seen what having to dew troops has gotten us in this war. Withdrawing 50,000 troops right now would be a disaster. Adding 50,000 would dramtically help. Sadly, it would strain the military to the breaking point. But if we did the war in Iraq would be over much sooner.

Answer 9

I'm for reducing the troops. My husband is over there now, and I think that the men & women that have been over there for 16, 20, 22 month deployments is ridiculos to say the least. What about there families? There husbands? There Wives? For petes sake they dont even know who there children are anymore. Bring some of them HOME. And wasn't it on CNN.com that said that even if they did bring the SMALL number of troops home that Bush wants, that still leaves 120,000 troops over there.