Why is Bush sending more troops to Iraq?
Bush said in his speech that the war in Iraq would make future American generations safer from terrorism and that history would tell…but history has spoken….since his invasion…. the middle East has become much more ablaze with terrorism, Hezbollah is stronger, Hamas is Stronger, another dangerous, violent leader Muqtada al-Sadr is emerging to take the place of Saddam, Bin Laden is still at large…Bush’s imperialistic “foreign Policy” is strengthening Anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and making it easier than ever to recruit young people to join Jihad…America voted on November 7, 2006 for a new direction in Iraq…so why is he sending more American troops to referee the Iraq Civil war and insist on staying the course?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
He should send more troops to Afghanistan, where al-qaeda has increased its operations five-fold last year. Remember it was al-qaeda who attacked on 911..not iraq. It's mind-boggling to know the Bush Adminstration is losing the war on terror in the post 911 world...the man has unlimited resources and no opposition immediately after 911...yet Islamic radicalism has increased and al-qaeda is stronger than ever...and he still hasn't captured bin Laden. The bipartisan ISG disagrees with troop escalation...Colin Powell disagrees...even neocon Oliver North disagrees...and almost all the White House staff and the Generals disagree. Troop escalation means an escalation of american deaths...an escalation of innocent Iraqi deaths...
Bush's escalation announcement is simply the "latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times." When Bush sent increased U.S. forces into Baghdad in June 2006, the security situation actually deteriorated further and violence increased. One Bush administration official admitted that the escalation plan is "more of a political decision than a military one" and military commanders have made clear to the President that U.S. forces are already overstretched. As Bush noted in June 28, 2005, sending more troops to Iraq will "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever."
It is clear that Bush did not listen to the American public when figuring out the way forward in Iraq. A recent CBS poll found that just 18 percent of the American public supports an escalation of involvement in Iraq. He also didn't heed the advice of his military commanders. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were unanimously opposed to the escalation. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly declared in December that he does not support escalation, "is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge,'" columnist Robert Novak reported. Military commanders also told the President that they had just 9,000 soldiers and Marines available to go to Iraq. Bush also ignored advice from America's "allies abroad." British Prime Minister Tony Blair made clear that he will not send more U.K. troops to Iraq, but will instead "stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army." The ISG also did not recommend an escalation in troops in its recent report, and group member Leon Panetta told Newsweek that increasing troops will send the "wrong message to the Iraqis."Source(s): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16543049/site/newsweek... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16571324/
- 1 decade ago
Because more troops (man power) could help in finding, fighting, and killing insurgents. We shouldve sent more troops a few years ago. We need to try and finish the job and we need to use more force and tacticts to help squash the majority of the insurgents. Of course, this will be for nothing if Iraqis do not stand up and do their part as well. We also need to some how get Iran to stop aiding the insurgents. More sanctions perhaps.
This is a new direction. If you expected a new direction to be pack up and leave, then you are wrong. Even the Dems like that bag lady Pelosi said we should have more troops. She said that a while back but of course now she is saying no because as usual, the Dems want to be against anything Bush is for. The man cant win because since the start of this, people have been flip flopping and just continue to attack him, yet where are there answers or alternative strategies? They dont offer any. The democrats are proving to be good for nothing.
- Violation NoticeLv 61 decade ago
He really is an idiot. If anything, he should be sending troops home slowly. Iraqi's don't want the US there, neither does anyone else.He promised 2 years ago that troops would be coming home but now he's requesting more. He just keeps screwing everything up! Yes, I think that Sadaam should have been taken out of power for all the crap that he did, but Bush has dragged this out WAY TOO LONG! And I don't agree with killing Sadaam...Life in a maximum security prison would be just fine. the only reason that Bush invaded Iraq is because his daddy couldn't finish what he started. Frankly, Bin Laden should be the presidents top priority and the rest of his clan. Anyway, the civil war in Iraq was caused be him, I would think if I messed up that bad, I would want to not show my face there anymore. If Bush was going in a "new direction", he would listen to his advisors. I'm sorry that I ever voted for Bush...I voted based on morals (i e. abortion and so on) but now his true face is shining through and I regret that he's the leader of our wonderful country...He doesn't deserve it.
- Think Richly™Lv 51 decade ago
It's a good question. His generals advised him to send more troops as soon as they invaded and occupied Iraq. Because occupying forces need to be stronger than invading forces, since this is foreign territory, and it is harder to control guerilla warfare. However, Rummy didn't listen and messed it all up and made it harder to keep things in order. Now, after Rummy is gone, Bush is trying to patch things up... although now it is going to be harder and more expensive to fix this problem.
I think Bush is trying to fix a problem, but it's going to be just as effective as saying... "Stay the course" while everything is falling apart. At this point, even the number he's sending isn't going to be enough to fix Rummy's little FUBAR.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- iernaLv 43 years ago
i'm marvel and disbelieve with regard to the President 's determination to deliver greater troops to Iraq. i could no longer have faith my ears and eyes. i do no longer agree along with his determination, i beg you to touch the White abode remark line and your Senator and Congress to voice your opinion. coach human beings around you with regard to the possibility of Iraq and it is approximately time we redeploy our troop returned abode. KGO the television in my abode city had a ballot, seventy one% of folk do no longer help the President collectively as 29% will. there are an excellent sort of communities will march and protest. i'm particular greater to come back. I experienced the Vietnam war till now and that i observed how poor human beings have been in that concern. My heart and Soul would be with the Iraq human beings as properly as their troops and households.
- 1 decade ago
If the war is worth fighting, we should send more troops. If it's not, we should pull out what we have.
I think that the consequences of defeat would be dire. The terrorists got stronger and stronger all through the 90s too, when we were doing next to nothing.
I wish a full-scale confrontation were avoidable. I don't think it is.
Iran and Syria are at war with us now, whether we want to admit it or not.
We need to prevail.
- yettiLv 51 decade ago
There are several reasons.....
Let my first start off by saying I DID NOT agree with going over in the first place....but now that we are there, we have to finish what we started....
1. If we pack up and leave now, some new crazy person will take over, and use Iraq as a safe haven for people to attack the US. And when they find a way to hit us again and we here it started in Iraq, the american people are then going to be pissed taht we didn't take care of it when we were there.
2. Every knows that only political means are going to get things to start calming down in Iraq...however, if you don't have enough troops to control areas you have cleared....it does you no good, because then all the gov. can do is well, nothing.....you have to have troops to hold key areas and not lose them again, to give time for the politics to work.
3. All the bombs you hear about are not aimed at us...they are aimed at other Iraqis...A majority of Iraqs people are glad to see Saddam gone, but know they want us to leave because they want to be the ones to take his place....those bombs are not because the are pissed at the US....its because the small number of people can make a lot of noise...and that small number of people want to be the Sole power.
As I said, I did not agree with going, but if we leave now, we are going to be in even more trouble....and then all you people who are pissed that we are there now are going to be pissed that we just left and gave them a safe haven to plan more attacks....you will say.....you say now...."leave let them handle their own fight" when we get bombed again....you will say "stupid bush, should have stayed and finished what he started" so what do you want.....
- sprydleLv 51 decade ago
History hasn't said anything yet. Calling current events history is like calling the latest number one song a classic of the decade. When WW2 ended the Nazis started an insurgency in the Franconia region of Germany that was pretty much hushed up by the press. If todays media were around then i wonder if they'd refer to that as a "unmitigated failure of US policy in Germany" or as a "civil war" in Germany.
Muqtada al-Sadr isn't taking Saddam's place he's just a carreer criminal trying to get out of going to jail for a murder charge from years back. Bin Laden is on the loose but without funds and a leadership structure (killing Bin Laden won't stop Al-Queda you've been watching too many movies) he's pretty much done. Besides the guy who actually came up with the concept for 9/11 HAS been captured.
Al-Queda is run like a tribal council. One guy comes up with an idea and presents it and the others vote on it.
Why is Bush sending more troops to Iraq? Because he admits he took too many out too early besides the big question is why did Democrats change their mind?
Just weeks ago the dems were calling for more troops BUT NOW since Bush says "Okay let's send some." the dems are saying "No let's don't."
Hey Dems can you get saddle sore from riding a fence?
You don't politicize war you fight it without restraint if you want to win. Bush's only fault is he's fighting a bare knuckle boxing match with pillows.Source(s): Student of military history going for my MA.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It's either send more troops or pull them out and he won't ever admit defeat so he sends more troops in. This he hopes his new plan will keep things relatively neutral in Iraq (not winning but not losing) for the next 2 years and then he can sneak out of office and let the disaster fall to the poor fool who becomes to next President.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He's trying to salvage what's left of his lame duck presidency and go out on a high note. How you can call more dead American troops a high note is beyond me. At least he had the cajones to admit last night he made mistakes - eating crow like that had to really leave a bad taste in his mouth. Poor Georgey.