Why Don’t You Send More Troops?
Why Don’t You Send More Troops?
President Bush: “Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tel me they have the number of troops they need to do their job.”
Fact: According to the London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), the insurgency in Iraq gains strength from the lawlessness of western Iraq: “Militarily, it’s a security vacuum.” The main reason U.S. military officers have said they are unable to gain control of the west? Not enough troops. (As Maj. Mark Lister, a senior Marine air officer in Al Anbar province, put it, “Basically, we’ve got all the toys, but not enough boys.”) President Bush has insisted he has sent enough troops to Iraq. U.S. military officers in the western Al Anbar province say they’ve repeatedly asked for more troops, but commanders in Baghdad and the Pentagon have denied their requests.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What allies?
June 28th, 2005 at 8:25 pmOh, that’s what they call’em…
June 28th, 2005 at 8:27 pmSalesmanship clouds the truth yet again… W is so arrogant & phony, hoping the slick delivery will somehow erase what we know to be true via American non-mainstream media. When will we ask for the kind of help our troops really need?? –leadership with intelligence & wisdom…..an exit strategy & collaboration with world peace keepers?
June 28th, 2005 at 8:38 pmHe doesnt send more troops because winning is not the goal.
June 28th, 2005 at 8:43 pmHe also doesn’t have more troops to send, and the upper level of command knows if they ask for more they simply kill their military career.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:06 pmThe president and his administration have a long history of listening to the suggestions of the commanders on the ground. Just ask Eric Shinseki how well they take advise.
June 28th, 2005 at 9:08 pmYep – If we don’t have enough troops on the ground it’s because the generals haven’t asked for them.
- blaming the troops, as usual…
June 28th, 2005 at 9:35 pmGo Kilo Ebi has it exactly right. What happened to Shinseki was a disgrace. The Pentagon and the neocons purged their ranks of dissenters, however otherwise accomplished and qualified.
Still worth reading: the cautions by General Anthony Zinni, Bush’s former Middle East envoy, who also publically–in October 2002–discussed how the Bush Administration was making possibly deadly miscalculations.
Most experts agreed with Shinseki–at least 300,000 troops were needed. Larry Diamond, in his new book Sqaundered Victory, offers a good summary of what Bush was told.
He just ignored it. The troop level commitment was a political decision.
Shameful that the military now gets the blame for the poor judgment of the Bush administration.
Is passing the buck and refusing to acknowledge and responsibility “supporting the troops”?
Seems so in Bushworld.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:04 pmSolution: “Let the 59 million who voted for him fight his war”
June 28th, 2005 at 10:28 pmThe Neocon and Theoc(R)ats are Fighting!
Mark: “Let the 59 million who voted for him fight his [Iraqi Freedom] war�
Snerd: They a(R)e fighting … didn’t you listen to (R)ove’s speech the other day? They a(R)e fighting the true ‘EVIL’, the (D)s! This is the (R)eal war … America divided against itself … for Freedumb!
Snerd
June 29th, 2005 at 1:58 am[...] The fog of war, so often used to describe conflict’s confusing effect on policymakers and soldiers, also clouds the citizen’s ability to accurately assess their government’s progress in a war like the one in Iraq. In the Washington world of think tanks, in the news media, and in the accounts sent home by soldiers, there is still acrimonious debate about what is actually going on in the country and what it means for the U.S. effort. How can this be? And what should ordinary Americans, who are not paid to study Iraq night and day and who have never visited the country, think about this war? How can we know the truth when it eludes even those who delve daily in the flood of often-contradictory news and reports? How can we know the truth when even soldiers deployed in Iraq overwhelmingly believe that the U.S. is there because of Saddam Hussein’s role in 9/11?  The huge amount of information coming out of Iraq both dilutes and supports the administration’s optimistic narrative of progress. Casualties in Baghdad dropped 50% during the month of August. Or maybe they didn’t. Moqtada Al-Sadr controls an army of 10,000 Shiites. Or maybe he doesn’t. Sovereignty was returned to Iraq in 2004, but the US now has now increased troop levels in the country. Marine sources in Al-Anbar say that more soldiers are needed to win on the ground and the White House states that requests from the field would be honored, if made. [...]
September 13th, 2006 at 7:50 pmwhy should we dend more troops that will just put us into a draft and if those troops need more weapons whos going to pay for them not the president the government. where does the government get all that money? from my moms and dads taxes (im only 13 but were doing a debate at school on why we should and shouldnt send more troops.)
January 18th, 2007 at 8:52 pm