The soldiers fighting this war say more troops would just create more American targets. Comments, anyone?

I say if we do this and things get worse then we pull out every damn soldier. If this administration can't figure out what the hell they are doing, then we should stop sending our soldiers to die for their incompetence.

By the way, we have been steadily increasing troop levels, and it hasn't done a thing thus far to quell the violence. In fact violence has been increasing steadily.

In a war between two opposing forces, more troops for either side also means more targets for the opposing side. However, strength is in numbers, and in a war the stronger force ultimately wins.

The situation, war, in Iraq is awful, any war is awful, and, despite the politics that got us there, for better or worse we are there, and our men and women are fighting and dying.

I honestly have mixed feelings about our President's decisions, judgment and motivation in the Middle East, but will always, vehemently and whole heartedly support our troops and winning any war that will get them all home and safe from harm. That goes along with deploying vast numbers to back up the troops stationed there already.

In my opinion creating more targets isn't the issue, with or without more troops our troops, civilians and contractors are STILL targets and they will still die. The issue, in my opinion, is an effective strategy to win, carry out the mission of the United States in Iraq and come home!

You mean the ones that agree with you!

What about these guys and the others that say the same thing.

Staff Sgt. Anthony Handly disagreed, saying Baghdad has made improvements many Americans aren't aware of.

"People think everything is so bad and so violent, but it's really not," said Handly, 30, of Bellingham, Wash. "A lot of people are getting jobs they didn't have before and they're doing it on their own. We just provide a stabilizing effect."

Staff Sgt. Lee Knapp, 28, of Mobile, Ala., also supported a temporary troop surge, saying it could keep morale up by reducing the need to extend units past the Army's standard tour of one year in Iraq.

"It could help alleviate some stress on the smaller units," he said. "It could help Baghdad, but things are already getting better."

Ever been to a VA hospital? I have and talk to troops that have been in Iraq. The majority I have talked to have stated, that they think we should finish the task at hand, setting up the Iraq's to take care of their own country! Even though they have been injured, most not all, have stated they want to go back and finish the mission!

I'd have to say that the troops that they interviewed are in the minority. My boyfriend, who just got back from Iraq in May, is ready to head back. His unit feels the same way. They believe that a surge in troops will allow them to temporarily quell the violence so that they can teach the Iraqi army how to fight on their own. Then again, they also don't know how America is ever going to pull out of Iraq because as soon as we lessen our forces there, the guys that are left behind are going to be in serious danger. (and they don't trust the iraqis)

while i'm not sure the surge of troops is necessarily the answer, i just wanted to let you know that what the media reports is often not the complete truth...

As an Iraqi conflict vet i'm able to regrettably enable you to recognize which you have been grossly misinformed. Air strikes are very efficient, precise and easily utilized in specific circumstances. Raids placed us at a lots bigger hazard to be a casualty and regrettably it truly is how we carry out maximum of our missions. i might recommend you come across a sparkling source of counsel. in case you utilize the media it truly is a huge mistake. occasion, the Iraqi human beings, for the main section love us and what we are doing there. I truly have some photographs of the locals giving us hugs and intense 5's. The media leads you to have faith otherwise, in maximum situations. additionally the civilian deaths led to by utilising the U. S. are so very minimum. conflict is hell and loss of life is the bring about case you're harmless or a combatant. you may no longer even evaluate WW2 to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it truly is not EVEN A conflict! 2 diverse battles, approaches, much less countries and individuals in touch, international domination no longer in play and various technologies. For you being a self proclaimed, historian, i'm surprised at how unintelligent you come back for the duration of. For the calling me a coward section, why do no longer you grab an M-sixteen, go over there and instruct us all the way it truly is accomplished! in case you're making it lower back in a million piece i'm going to call you a coward after which you would be able to tell me the way you experience. God Bless

Im in the Army. I believe we don't need anymore troops. I think we should have an "Operation Liquidiate". Whenever an IED goes off we should just shoot anyone who's around the area. Sooner or later the civi's there would just start turning in the terrorists. I also think we should stay there until the war is over and not pull out because if we do we will show the world that all they need to do to beat us is stick it out and keep fighting. Also if we pull out, the Iraq will just be a training site for terrorists. I will proudly go to mid-east until this war ends. GO AMERICA!

liberals will never be happy will you. if you listened to the men on the ground before the change in policy they said things were going good and progress was being made. dont quote them saying that but then some say more troops isn't going to help so you use that to bash Bush. You will never learn its the liberal agenda that doesn't allow them to do their job. ask the men and women on the ground if that is true and guaranteed a majority will tell you yes emphatically

Of course it would create more U.S. targets. But. The question is what does the military plan to do with tens of thousands of additional troops.Where will they be stationed? What towns will they be assigned to? Additional troops means more fighting. Will it be attacks from above, or door to door?

Does anyone kinow?

I saw that report. Two hours earlier the AP posted another one saying the opposite... So, it's probably more of a mixed bag than that.

Can you imagine ever listening to the actual people doing the fighting and dying? Heaven forbid.. Bush knows what is best. Right?