Bush sends more troops to Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter kindaichi
  • Start date
  • #1
21
0
http://www.channelone.com/news/2007/01/24/ap_union/ [Broken]

As you all may know already,this guy is seeking another chance to work this out.Yay or nay?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
verty
Homework Helper
2,164
198
Channel One is that TV channel for schools, right? Seems an odd place to look for news. Also, this question is rather devoid of content.
 
  • #3
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,983
2,332
Likely they need more troops to support the Iraqi military/police - particularly in Baghdad.

But the democrats seem to be opposing this move - or making it difficult.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=128042007 [Broken]

This seems rather disingenous of the democrats since -
Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html

Now Lt. Gen. David Petraeus has called more for more troops.
During his confirmation hearing last month, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee the situation in Iraq was “dire, but not hopeless.” Petraeus testified he wanted all 21,500 troops moved “as rapidly as possible” into Iraq.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...91.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politics

Petraeus did a reasonable good job as commander of the 101st. He could have done better if the administrator and military leaders had a proper plan which had been properly implemented in the first place starting in April 2003.

But we'd better have a darn good idea of the followup. And right now it doesn't look good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,983
2,332
Cost of war

I am wondering what Bush and his pals will do for the Vets of their war.

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=the_cost_of_war_the_debate_over_trauma_i&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 [Broken]: A Study Reignites the Debate Over Soldiers' Trauma
"The Psychological Risks of Vietnam for U.S. Veterans: A Revisit with New Data and Methods" addresses what seems a simple question: What proportion of U.S. veterans of the Vietnam War developed post-traumatic stress syndrome, or PTSD, in reaction to their service there? That answering this question proves difficult shouldn't surprise, for the definition of PTSD has a history almost as controversial as that of the Vietnam War. Indeed, PTSD was recognized as a legitimate disorder only in the 1980s, and only because Vietnam veterans forced the issue. Research since then has shown that PTSD rises from distinct changes in neuroanatomy and endocrinology.

Yet if PTSD's clinical basis is solid, its prevalence among veterans remains controversial. This is partly because the stakes are high: As both essays note below, we can't properly treat PTSD in veterans, whether of past, present, or future wars, if we don't know its prevalence. In addition, assessing our troops' trauma inevitably feeds the ongoing debate over war's cost-benefit ratio. This debate is difficult at any time -- and torturous indeed when a war's benefits prove elusive. This happened in Vietnam and appears to be happening now in Iraq. Small wonder that this simple question -- How much trauma have we inflicted on our veterans? -- can prove excruciatingly painful to answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
960
0
What i have seen in working with combat vets from Nam: group and individual therapy was offered. This is where it gets sticky, once it is an accepted diagnosis and has signs and symptoms associated with it, malingering becomes part of the differential diagnosis. Thats why I guess the prevalence is "controversial". Its real, but whether genuine in a particular case,hard to prove. To all, buy the latetst Time magazine---the Brain Owners Manual. Good read.
 
  • #6
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,983
2,332
I spent time with a Green Beret and other combat vets from Nam. The each dealt with the stresses in different ways, but they were affected. Some guys would fly of the handle over little stuff, others were quiet - almost withdrawn.

The descriptions of what they saw and what they did are would probably make most people uncomfortable or in some cases ill.
 
  • #7
960
0
I spent time with a Green Beret and other combat vets from Nam. The each dealt with the stresses in different ways, but they were affected. Some guys would fly of the handle over little stuff, others were quiet - almost withdrawn.

The descriptions of what they saw and what they did are would probably make most people uncomfortable or in some cases ill.
No doubt. A few hours of helmet cam footage on TV, or hey how about a few stills even, would put an end to this "war" in no time. The Military channel I guess is doing something along these lines, but haven't tuned in yet.

PTSD is a curious illness. I'm not a traumatologist (no i didn't make up the term), some guys seem extraordinarily resilient, while others seem haunted for life from the ghosts of the past. In my limited experience, the medics seem to be represented disproportionately.

This one is gonna have worse fallout w/ respect to mental casualties, I'm guessing, on account of the randomness of it all. Odd thing to say about war, I suppose, but when you never know when you're coming home or blown up, I should think that would exact a toll. At least the Nam guys generally knew where the enemy was, (molitov toting kids notwithstanding) and when their term was up.
 

Related Threads on Bush sends more troops to Iraq

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
8K
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
76
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
34
Views
5K
Replies
24
Views
17K
Replies
38
Views
4K
Top