Rumor has it the Iraq task force will suggest increasing U.S. troop levels.  Will this be effective or not?
963273
Only if you believe that our being an occupying force is going to succeed.  I do not know of any occupation by force that ever worked, except in Japan after WWII, and that only succeeded because of the inspired and compassionate leadership of General MacArthur.  We have no such inspiration or compassionate leadership today, and short of doubling or tripling our troop levels, which we do not have, we are only going to prolong this agony.  The fact that the Iraqis continue to fight us door to door, and show no signs of losing their will to continue, should be a message that is loud and clear.
1133811
Dats a neat idea- is anyone listening?? it'll sell well in Iraq atleast
785831
I saw on CNN last night that to be as effective as we were in world war 2 we would have to increase our military to over 400,000 troops. that would be 14 soldiers for every thousand Iraqis' that would mean a large scale draft and many many opinions support that idea. our allies seem to be going out the backdoor and practically the whole world thinks we should too. there's no way to leave this war and save face unless we win and the only way to win is a draft and I don't support a draft. many others don't either. I say start now pulling them out slowly. maybe some of them could come home for Christmas
215067
Draft?? Heck no. We need to be pulling our troops out, not putting more in. What is about to happen now in Iraq, a Civil War, is something that we will not be able to stop. We've done enough damage already to a country that isn't even the "hub of terrorism."
1015674
I feel our president is on track with Iraq.  It's a touch and go situation right now but from what I have seen and read I feel we are on track.  If it were possible I would like to see Iraqi troops and police taking over more responsibility of there country and maybe help them more than we have to accomplish this goal.  We know they want there freedom, are willing to die for it and hope we can help them achieve there goals.  So other than that there is not much I would or would try to change.  I have faith in our military and our president's actions.\n\nGood question.
776759
America should be serious with the Iraq issue or else it will be another Vietnam.  Troops must stay or leave completely, it is only one choice but must be properly implemented.
693572
Well, the difference in ability between Iraqi and U.S. troops is huge. U.S. troop are more effective and organized, and better armed. We are training Iraqi forces, though, so they'll get better and take over eventually.
553524
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have lately been touting three sets of statistics to justify their claims of great progress in Iraq. First, they say, we've trained 100,000 Iraqi security forces. Second, 31 other countries are contributing troops as part of the vast international coalition. Third, Iraqi reconstruction is moving along on schedule, thanks to the $18.4 billion in U.S. economic aid.\n\nYet the U.S. State Department's most recent Iraq Weekly Status Report, dated Oct. 6, reveals that all three of those claims are either false or so misleading that they might as well be.\n\nFirst, it's true there are 100,000 Iraqi security forces, about three-quarters of whom are police, army troops or National Guardsmen. But that falls far short of the 272,000 forces that the report calculates are required. (For a breakdown of how many trained security forces exist and how many are needed, by category, click here.) \nSecond, about those 31 coalition members: All told, according to the report, they're contributing about 24,000 troops. The British alone are supplying about 8,000. So the remaining 30 countries have a total of 16,000 troops in Iraq—an average of just over 500 troops per country. The United States has about 130,000 troops over there—more than five times as many as all the other 31 countries combined. (For a full list of the countries involved—which include such powerhouses as Albania, Azerbaijan, and Tonga—click here.) This is not a coalition in the recognized sense of that word.\n\nCompare those figures with these: During the 1991 Gulf War (according to U.S. Central Command's official history of that conflict), 37 other nations took part, sending a total of 270,000 armed forces, flying 30,000 air sorties, and suffering one-third of combat fatalities. Among the nations sending at least one army division were Egypt and Syria. Now that's a coalition.*\n\nMore damning are the report's figures on Iraqi reconstruction. Yes, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $18.4 billion for this effort; but, according to the report, the authorities on the ground in Iraq have spent just $1.3 billion—about 7 percent of the money set aside.\n\nThe specifics of this disparity are still more depressing. For security and law enforcement, $3.2 billion was appropriated, but only $646 million has been spent. For electricity, $5.4 billion was appropriated, $330 million spent. For water resources and sanitation, $4.2 billion was appropriated, a pathetic $23 million spent. For oil infrastructure, $1.7 billion was appropriated, just $47 million spent. For justice, public safety and civil society, $1 billion was appropriated, $55 million spent. For health care, $786 million was appropriated, but $4 million spent. For transportation and communication, $500 million was appropriated, $12 million spent. And the list goes on.\n\nAlthough the State Department issued this report, you will not find it—or its weekly updates—on the State Department's Web site. Nor will you find it on the site of the Agency for International Development (though AID does have a similar report, with far vaguer and rosier figures). Instead, you'll find it on the Web site of the U.S. Commerce Department's Iraq Investment and Reconstruction Task Force—in short, on a site for businesses that need to know what's really happening over there. \n\nWhat's really happening—in numbers as clear as day—is that the training of security forces is proceeding way too slowly, the coalition is a misnomer, and reconstruction has barely got off the ground.\n\nCorrection, Oct. 8, 2004: The piece originally misstated the number of non-U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War coalition. It originally said that the non-U.S. coalition partners sent "a total of 800,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, as well as 300 combat support battalions, over 225 naval vessels, and 2,800 fixed-wing aircraft. Those aircraft flew 112,000 sorties and droppe
1062224
Screw liberals!  The Bush administration has made big mistakes in Iraq but things are going to get better once:  Iraqi forces increase, the iraqi parliament works together, and when the Iraqis start to realize that their destiny is in their hands and the U.S. is just their to support them.  A terror-free Iraq is beter for the U.S. and the world.  We can't just leave now.  We need to finish the job and in the long run it will benefit the U.S.
817372
Watch or listen to CSPAN now. There is a hearing on that. The General just said We need more troops, another said, We need an exit strategy. \nIn one month the Baker meet will be over and then and only then will we will know anything. \nMy opinion is that there should be 3, one Sunni, one Shiite and one Kurd. Each with their own accepted borders, and all sharing equally in any oil revenues from all 3 Countries or States. \nThe Shia and Sunni are never going to get along, and the Kurds just add an extra element of dispute. So give them all 3 equally shares of land, in relation to their original lands and with some acknowledgment as to Census Status, i.e. 3million Shia, 3million acre, 2 million Sunnis 2 million acres, 1million Kurds, 1 million acre. Or something like that. Seems fair, they all get Oil Revenues equally, and no one is or can take anothers land.
713146
Most likely.\n\nI think everyone on earth except Rumsfeld thought we needed more troops.\n\nI was watching a documentary about the Amazon Jungle and one of the little rain forest guys said, " Ca kei dujk fi nuct Rum" The translator said he wants to know why Rumsfeld sent such a small Army.\n\n\nGo big Red Go
697581
We will be there until the Government is stable and their military is effective.  The best way to succeed in this is to increase troop presence, but good luck with that...\n\nIf we had sent the proper ammount of troops in the first place and the administration listened to the Generals on the ground, this would have been nearly over...
782358
Neither one.They will send more troops but less funding and will piss even more people off by utterly disrespecting the new Iraqi government forcing stronger ties between it and Al Sadr.
30847
Ablolutely not! Isnt there already too much warfare around the world? why increase it?
893954
I don't think there is a workable plan for Iraq which involves a US presence there.  As much as I hate to have to go this route, I think bringing Iraq's neighbors into the picture may be the only way to insure a unified Iraq.  That would mean that in little time Iran would play the main role.  At least Iran would have influence over the Shia insurgents there.  Bringing them in would enable us to "redeploy" (leave).\n\nIf we remain, in addition to the losser we and the Iraqi people will continue to face, the country will in all probability divide into three sections.  With one of those section being Kurdish it will increase tensions on the Northeastern border.  turkey is very nervous about the idea of a Kurdish state since a portion of the land the Kurds occupy is Turkish.\n\nAll in all we have done exactly what George H Bush tried to avoid when he was president, make a terrible situation worse with an occupation.  Saddam did what most successful dictators do, he killed those who showed signs of being able to lead.  When we removed him it created a vacuum that nobody in Iraq will be able to fill in the near term.
1117216
No, there should be no cast-in-concrete definite date. The reason is not because US troops should be removed from Iraq, because they should be, but because giving a definite date will work to the advantage of insurgents who can then plan accordingly.  As long as the insurgents are kept second guessing the US intentions they will be off balance and will not be able to formulate definitve actions based on that information.  \n\nWhat would probably work far better is a gradual drawdown of so many thousands a month or whatever, with the option to send them right back if any massive insurgent attacks occur.  By gradually pulling troops out, there will be no definite date that would mark a boundary between "troops there" and "troops not there".  It's sort of the reverse of putting the frog in the pot of cold water and gradually turning up the heat; the water begins to get warm so gradually that the frog doesn't notice it and before he knows it he is boiled to death.  A gradual drawdown of troops would be much the same only in reverse.  As US troops gradually leave, the power shift to Iraqi soldiers would be hardly noticable until one day they all come to the realization that all the US troops  had left months ago.
927556
Yes, I support our troops.\nI think the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake, but that certainly is not the fault of the troops.\nVery interesting points you make, although the rationing of resources I feel would be unnecessary.\nI would agree with your other two suggestions however.