It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: U.S. Planning for Troop Increase in Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:15 PM
As the "hand over of power" to Iraqi leaders is set to take place. And with the will of the Iraqi people showing that they have a strong desire for the U.S.A. to leave their country, The U.S. Military is developing a contingency plan to deploy 25,000 more troops to Iraq if the security situation continues to deteriorate...

Full Report Link:

WASHINGTON - U.S. Central Command has asked the Army to prepare for the possibility that an additional 25,000 troops may be needed in Iraq if the security situation there continues to deteriorate after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, NBC News has learned.

Army officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the preparation as contingency planning and said no request to deploy additional troops had been received. But they said military commanders want to be prepared for the worst if violence aimed at disrupting the handover and preventing the Iraqi government from gaining firm control over the nation continues to escalate.

Word that an increase in the U.S. military force in Iraq was under consideration came shortly after the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq was sworn in at the State Department.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

In my view all American soldiers in Iraq today serve as not much more than police officers and targets for terrorists. If we need more troops for "security reasons" is that not saying in a way we are fighting fire by throwing more fuel on it?

Is sending more troops to Iraq for increasing security concerns the right thing to do?

If Iraq is ever going to be an independant nation at some point it would seem logical for Iraqis to deal with their own security issues.

Perhaps this will remain a contingency and nothing more.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 06:37 PM
I don't think we'll see any troop movement until after the election, because of the action possibly swaying votes. I think we need some blue helmets there. They can keep the peace, while not creating the animosity that comes with our presence. I think a UN presence is more of an option with Kerry. Of course, the final decision won't be with the Iraqis. Our version of democracy is, your free now, you just can't tell us to leave.

posted on Jun, 24 2004 @ 12:30 AM
I too would like to see more blue helmets there, in charge of security. Whether they can keep the peace is another question, but if it means bringing our troops home, then I don't really care.

If the UN does go in, then there is no way they would command any US troops, at least while Bush is president. Even if Kerry were in charge, I doubt that the US military leadership would support being under UN rule.

Either way, the Iraqi military is not currently capable of handling their own security.


log in