Is there a real answer to why we sent more troops into Iraq?

Question

I'm wondering what is really behind this latest increase in troops. Is it just because Dubya SAID he was going to do it, and he has to prove that he can?
Is there an ulterior motive?
Is he trying to create a huge anti-war movement, to leave in place for the next president?
Is he still trying to do his best for the military industrial complex?
Did he promise Dick C.?
Obviously, I'm a liberal, but I welcome well thought out REAL answers from conservatives. (No "we've got to win this war for freedom" pap, please---unless you can explain "win" and "freedom").

Answer 1

The plan is to send more troops to work alongside the Iraqis to "hold and contain" the sunni's and shiite's so that their Iraqi leader (Maliki) can do his job. They are trying to hold elections and build their new government, but the sectarian violence is uncontrollable. Condleezza Rice claimed last night that Maliki had wanted to do this himself using only the Iraqi forces, but was unable to so early. She said that it would be summer before his own forces were able to contain the violence themselves and that with our help, it could be done now. One Senator last night said we needed to teach Sunni and Shiite families to "love their children more than they hate their neighbors" and I thought that was a very powerful statement. I have yet to decide whether or not I agree with the President's "new" plan. I question Maliki's sincerity, however I am (personally) hoping he does follow through with his promises. If not, I say enough is enough. Condoleezza Rice stated last night that "we will know very soon" whether or not he (Maliki) is following through with his obligations". I believe that, if he does not, we need to get the hell out of there and let them deal with their own mess. My patience has been tested, and is wearing thin. I want to help the Iraqis, but not at a huge American price...



PS We haven't SENT more troops to Iraq...it was a proposal drawn up by the Iraqi leaders.....not us. President Bush supports the plan, but it has not been approved.

Answer 2

The war between the Shiites and Sunnis will escalate. Saudi Arabia has already stated if we pull out, they will back the Sunni's. It is also no secret that Iran has been supplying the Shiites. This could in turn draw in more countries to fight. If Iran wins, which they would, they would then control 1/2 of the worlds supply of oil. Which affects everyones price for crude world wide. The price of crude also has an effect on eveything we purchase from groceries, clothing, everything pretty much that can be bought or sold. It will also give them more leverage to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities, and to continue sponsoring terrorists world wide. The impact of a war in the ME could turn out to be catastrophic to every nation on this planet. If this senario turns out to be true, the US would have to send more men and women into harms way, into a much more dangerous situation. If we leave before Iraq's government can stand up to enemies foreign and domestic, the US will hand the enemy a victory. Usama Bin Laden has said that America has no stomach for war. That when the going gets tough, so do the Americans. It is sad that he seems to be right!

Answer 3

This is a privatized war in which Bush and Cheney's corporate buddies were awarded no-bid contracts worth billions and billions of dollars. There is no oversight in Iraq, therefore it's basically a free-for-all. The longer the war continues, the more the corporate cronies steal from American taxpayers.



Here's an example. Halliburton (Cheney's favorite corporation), was awarded the contract to provide three meals a day for our troops. This is an exclusive contract. They bill the federal government $30 per meal, per day, for each and every one of our troops. Do the math: $30 x 3 x 165,000 troops = $14,850,000 per DAY! And that's just to provide food.



Here's the curious part. Halliburton Corporation is an energy services group that provides various services to the petroleum and energy industries. Why, pray tell, were they awarded a contract to feed our troops? They're not in the food business. Want the answer, or can you figure it out yourself?

Answer 4

There is no real reason for this troop increase. Out of all the possible solutions to the problems in Iraq suggested by the Iraq Study Group, President Bush chose the one every expert agrees is the least likely to be affective. A troop increase of 20,000 troops now, wouldn't even take us higher in troop levels than the 160,000 we have had in Iraq previously. So clearly an increase in troop levels, at least in the amount President Bush is proposing will be completely ineffective. At the same time, it is a very public escalation in U.S. forces which could easily be used by Anti-American groups in Iraq to recruit and mobilize to begin more attacks on Americans. Even if this plan could work, it would be completely dependant on the Prime Minister of Iraq to stick to his end of the bargain, something even Bush Administration officials have said in the past he is incapable of doing because he is far to influenced by radical Shiite Clerics. Already he has canceled a press conference where he was supposed to announce his support of this plan. Could he already be changing his mind? And one of the biggest problems with this strategy is the fact that President Bush felt the need to threaten Syria and Iran. The Iraq Study Group said that we could salvage the mess in Iraq if we asked Syria and Iran for help and instead President Bush threatens them. This will not go over well with Syria or Iran which will most likely do more to hurt our efforts in Iraq simply to spite us. This may of course be what President Bush wants, as he has clearly shown he has an interest in repeating his mistakes in Iraq by invading Iran.

Answer 5

Godz...no, it is a shift in strategy. We did complete the mission. Saddam was taken down. Restoring order can't happen in the way it was being attempted so we needed to shift tactics. I don't expect any to read this because of comments about it being all over oil, or revenge or other silly things but the fact is that what we were doing DID NOT WORK. So we change strategy. I apologize if I sound annoyed, but this gets asked over and over as if asking it again will change the answer.

Answer 6

It's very simple. The US has failed in Iraq and is trying to stay the course. It's the truth. Go watch the news and you'll see. Nothing is going well and more people are dying in Iraq than in the whole world in one day. Ok that's exaggeration but you know what I mean. The US shouldn't have entered in the first place. I mean Afghanistan is understandable but Iraq!!! What does it have to do with anything!!! How does Iraq pose a threat to US national security? No WMD, no nothing!!! Just more and more people being killed while Bush sits on his high throne. But no matter what anyone says, it's just no use anymore. No use at all.

Answer 7

I am neither liberal nor conservative. I do not know the real answer to why we are sending more troops to Iraq. The whole thing feels like desperation, and people who speak on the C Span channels say it does not make sense (illogical).

Answer 8

We did no longer have a decision in the remember. The democrats lower than Clinton had cut back the defense force by using a 0.33 in the 90s. of direction the manufacture of kit grow to be also cut back. We did no longer have an same defense force we had lower than Bush senior.

Answer 9

Why can't you just believe the reason he used ? We need to finish the job and help the Iraqi people be safe. I am sure that if he said anything about anything, people like you would doubt it and say he is not telling the truth. So no matter what explanation I or anyone else gives , you will not believe it because of your brainwashed liberal mind about hating Bush.

Answer 10

To stabilize the situation.What part of that don't you get.Bush is a Republican that means he means what he says.I know to a Democrat what is said is not the real reason and action or handling a situation is out of the question but with Republicans we mean what we say and do what we say we are going to do.

Answer 11

The troops on the ground in Iraq are requesting reinforcements.

Answer 12

Just another shot in the dark.I hope it does some good,but I don't see how it will,We never should have gone there in the first place.That's the REAL problem,there is NO good solution.

Answer 13

he has to keep a force so large in Iraq that it will take long after his presidency to be able to withdraw them so he can point the finger at the person who pulls the troops and say it was all his fault

Answer 14

Win-the US being able to pull out and Iraq not being a save haven for terroists



Freedom-being able to do what you want with no opposition



EDIT: To the guy above me...it is called, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Answer 15

To get ready to invade yet another country (Iran) for ISRAEL and send more young Americans to their death for ISRAEL.



(Meanwhile, young Israelis will be sent to safely continue killing rock throwing Palestinian kids)

Answer 16

Yes there is. But you would neither believe or understand it.

Answer 17

all I can tell you is what rice, and gates said, they have no back up plan and if sending more troops over fails, that means they failed

Answer 18

Ask the Israeli lobby.

Answer 19

Yes, the real answer was given in his national address. It isn't our fault that you had your ears closed and chose not to listen.

Answer 20

How can I add to what "PELOSI-HA" has said ? PERFECT ANSWER . There's no denying .

Answer 21

Oil baby!!



We gotta secure that oil!!

Answer 22

have to keep the world population in check

Answer 23

yeah



it's called oil

Answer 24

Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L)



to the guy below: duh.