Will the U.S. military presence in Iraq increase or decrease in 2008, and why?

Question

This question is being asked by a Yahoo! News editor. A portion of your answer might be used as part of a Yahoo! News special.

Answer 1

I think it all depends. If the Sunni and Shi'ite division gets any worse and civil war breaks out you can bet that more troops are gonna be sent in. If things start to calm down and finnally iraq can be trusted on its own our boys and girls will be coming home.

but the way things are going im guessing the numbers are gonna stay pretty much the same

Answer 2

I belive that for once the people have a great say in this matter, as it will be an election year in the US, the political parties will be watching what the poll's say...

And, although poll's can be manipulated to an extent, if the owerhwealming majority point toward a withdrawal, then there will be at least some kind of pulling out of troops.

Weather this will be a mostly cosmetic move, or a true start of a major pull out scheme, probably will be partly decided by which party and which candidates will be leading in the polls for the next presidency... In a case of a 'fifty, fifty', cituation, I belive both sides will be too worried to brake the status quo, unless there is an overwhealming dissent to the Coalitions continued involvement in Iraq, and this might be very unlikely as many of the anti war people do not vote. I might be wrong here but this seems to be how it is in US politics. People who are for a more Social Democratic state, are often not so interested in politics in general, and thus dont register.

But again, as an European, I might have got the wrong impression.

If the nation is indesicive, there will probably be no lessening of troops to speak of.

The same applies to the unlikely event that the polls would show a large ammount of the US voters for the keeping or even increasing of US troops in Iraq.

If so, then I belive that somekind of nominal sending of a high profile unit (Rangers, Marines, Mountain div, Paras, you get the picture), might be exectuted, but wouldnt make the ammount of troops very much bigger, the trend seems to be toward lessening troops anyway.

The question is, if it will be put off, or if it will be a cosmetic affair, or a true pulling out of troops, in which case there remains the question of what will happen in a 'post coalition', Iraq? Especially, what might happen to the Kurds, sandwiched between the now internationally spoken threat from the Turkish army, the Iranians, and the Sunni's in the south...

Answer 3

I believe U.S. Military presence in Iraq will decrease for several reasons. First of all, the military condition in Iraq is improving and troops will not be needed at their current levels. Also, the Iraq War has been extremely unpopular due to the relentless attack by the media against the war and George Bush. The situation in Iraq is improving and Republicans will want to curb public opinion by bringing troops home, stressing that the tide has turned. If public opinion doesn't change over the Iraq situation then Republicans are likely to have a difficult time in the 2008 presidential election. Besides, the situation is improving so it would be the right course of action. It will be both a political move as well as the correct military strategy.

Answer 4

The U.S. military presence in Iraq will most likely not decrease in 2008. Why? The answer is simple, we've made an obligation to a people who at the current moment in time, cannot protect themselves. Perhaps if security goals are met over the next year, the withdrawal process will begin. I do not see this happening however, as Islamic fundamentalist groups have showed time and time again, they will bide their time and when we let our guard down they will reclaim those areas. Military force must be maintained in Iraq, in spite of the many woes this war has caused for U.S. citizens. We need to set guidelines for the Iraqis, give them two more years of guaranteed American support. Then leave them to their own devices, let the Iraqis step up and take control of their own country...they are already taking the initiative, they just need some time and investment. War is not pretty, it's not pleasant, and it's not wanted. Yet we now have a moral obligation do what is considered right, after all we started this mess, now we have to finish it. We are supposed to set an example as the world's greatest nation.

Answer 5

The US military has done an awesome job in Iraq. If you've ever read any history at all, you will know that all throughout history, (even before wmd's) an invading army could and would lose 50000 men in order to lay siege to a city. Multiply that by 100 to take a country. Although this is due largely to the high morale and dedication of the all volunteer armed forces of the US, the credit must also be given to the Commanders in Chief that have built the military into what it is today. Ronald Reagan began this vital role in the 1980s and it was continued throughout Bush's term. Clinton loathed the military and tried to dismantle it in the eight years he was in office. President George Bush had to rebuild what was left of the devastation. That being said, not only is he a hero as Commander in Chief, he also shall win back the Republican House and Senate in 2008 if he pulls out of Iraq and stabilizes the middle east by next year.

Answer 6

U.S. military presence will decrease because the troops sent in for the surge will eventually be reduced. As additional Brigade Combat Teams rotate in the also may be reduced because of the stability being built by the increase of Iraqi Armed Forces. The troop mix will shift to more troops to train the Iraqi Army and to help with the rebuilding of the old and crumbled infrastructure.Many of the newer troops will be engaged in the building of new schools , Hospitals and clinics in most areas. The new infrastructure will range out beyond the big cities and into the sparse arid areas in Iraq. The troops will be engaged in other projects such as redoing old water wells and the creation of new wells. The troops are going to still be in harms way but give hope to the citizens of Iraq that this new democracy can work.

Answer 7

The military should decrease because of the MITT teams (training the Iraq Army). But the bottom line is that it will increase because of the debt, and it is not in our nature to retreat (quit).
Vietnam will be a war game compared to this. We elected a president that has to make the best decision (he feels). Combat decisions are made on the battle field, if errors are made, and one bad decision is made after another, what can be worst (longer tours). The out- come is out of our hands. We can not do it. The leaders that are running this country are not suffering nothing, no loss to family members. Lets calculate their loss of family or close friends. Yes, the military was a choice for many but what are there options? What about the legal and illegal aliens, should'nt they be forced to serve in the armed forces for citizenship. We are war mongalers. Nothing will cover up what we have done. They are fighting for Religion and life.
The greatest wars were based on religion and authrity. We will continue to shovel our authority down their throughts. And the way to accomplish authority is to send more troops. It is unfair because my husband has already served 2 tours and now he is deploying for the 3rd time.
Iraq and Vietnam are the same.Something that is only suppose to last a short , eternity.
The military claims that they are all for the family but they really only care for the soldier. Not the family. Insurance money will not cover what has been lost lost. Divorce rate is high, adultry and seperation is highter. Left behind spouses were told that our signifigant others would be deployed , up to 6 months. It went from that to 12 months and now 15 + months.
We now have 3 times the force over there. In the mean time, men and women and dying protecting the convoyes, showing the military prescence. (Showing them that we are there and watching) letting them know that when "they go to sleep, they will dream of the men and women they are watching!

Answer 8

There will be no significant reduction in forces in Iraq even though there could be continued withdrawal of a small number. The reason for this is twofold. First of all, this administration wishes to establish a permanent presence in Iraq, either via direct occupation or via a reliable puppet regime that would require minimal regular military and mercenary back up. Permanent bases and a hugely expensive embassy building have been built to further these goals. This administration wishes to have the US dominate the region militarily, economically, and politically, regardless of the wishes of the indigenous peoples of the region. The second reason there will be little in the way of troop withdrawal is that this administration wishes to have another administration stuck with all the decisions regarding occupation vs. withdrawal. In this scenario, this administration cannot lose. If a future administration decides to stay, the goal of permanent presence is furthered. If a future administration withdraws, any unpleasantness that follows will be blamed on the new administration and not on Bush.

Answer 9

According to what propaganda will say will be yes... but right now there are numbers that have spiked because of natural troop rotations... meaning there are right now troops that have got there to replace others that will in turn be going home in a month or two... so lets say there are 100 troops at this camp in Iraq... well before they go home 100 troops replacing them will come to be at this camp... soo then the number of troops will flucuate by 100...so 200 troops will be at the camp. Then in about a month or two those original 100 will go home leaving their 100 replacements behind... and then that will be reported as a decrease when actually the numbers are the same as they originally were a month ago. OK then you have the surge troops.... I think we will get down to maybe pre surge levels by mid- to the end of 2008... but that still will mean 130,000 troops....and the only reason is because we do not have enough troops to maintain this surge... we barely have enough for the regular 130,000 that we have maintaned since the beginning. Also there are Army troops leaving as we speak with orders indicating that they will be there until 2009 since their orders are for 1 months at a time. Troop roations have been planned well through 2009... maybe 2010. So they will not increase... but they are not decreasing if you look at the original troop levels set and not this surge that has been happening not even for a year yet.... and we are well prepared to send 130,000 at least to be in Iraq until 2010 as of right now.

Answer 10

Troop levels will decrease in 2008, regardless of how the war is going or what the Iraqi people do.

First, the troop levels have already begun to decrease from the Surge, as scheduled and dictated by the rotations.

Second, the democrats control the congress, and thus control the purse strings for the wars funding. They are under pressure to end the war. Since 2008 is an election year, they will make sure that the military is unable to continue to pay for the current levels of troops in Iraq.

Answer 11

At present, the U.S. military presence in Iraq will decrease overall. While some Army Brigades have already begun to be deployed back the the United States, other Brigades in Iraq will be sent to replace those deployed Brigades. The timetable for reducing the number of Brigades from approximately 25 to 15 is from now until Summer 2008, if all goes well with the Iraqi government.