Bush's speech last night

I have mixed feelings on this since I have mixed feelings on us being there at all. On the one hand I feel that there is probably information that I don't have and that the people in charge know more than me, so why should I question them. On the other, I don't understand why, with our country needing so much right now and the shape of our economy, why we aren't more concerned with fixing things here than we are being somewhere we aren't wanted? Isn't there an old adage about looking after your own house before you try to clean up the neighbors? I can only feel though that our troops are the ones who ultimately see the situation over there and since I don't see them in the news complaining or anti-war, they must see something we don't as we sit innocently at home. But what cost are we willing to pay for success? And how are we defining it. There is a line between helping them on their feet and taking over, are we at that point yet? Who is serving as our conscience because truthfully i don't trust Bush to be objective about it. I feel for you though as a military spouse, it's got to be hard to deal with the press about it :(

I think the US has already put in a lot of effort and just plain failed (through no fault of the troops I might add). I think it was just a completely ill-thought out plan from the start. Bush's entire strategy now ids just to leave the military there until his term is over and let the next president deal with it

think bush is a big liar!first he tells to end terrorism,then he rages never-ending war on the nations,to gain peace for his country,in this way american soldiers as well as civilians are being killed,but americans never object,think their society has become more than the vietnam days,when people used to mass protest,write songs against the politics,raise people,one like lennon figure is missing nowadays.

It sounds like Bush is willing to do whatever he can before he leaves office. Even if it means going to war with Iran & Syria. It's unbelievably SCREWY.

I don't think escalation is the answer. Just let the troops already there do their jobs. I think policies here are tying the soldiers hands behind their backs.

Bush strategy by adding more troops in Iraq will not bring peace. Currently US already have thousand of soldier in Iraq to restore peace, but untill now it far from reaching the target. Condition in Iraq become worst everyday. US should think first what is wrong with their strategy. Iraq don't have soldier to fight US troop anymore. There are civilian who hate US or other parties(sunni or syiah,kurds). Today more civilian were killed, which is killed by their own brother/Iraqis or by US bombing. US should find a way to make peace by other major war parties, if US cannot solve their problem, US will see second vietnam in US history.

Bush is a very stupid man !

It was really weird.Lol

Bush's speech mad sense but he did leave out a few things that should have been explained a little better. Real treats with in and out side of Iraq that funnel money and arms support to terrorist activity there are from several neighbor nations. The basic concept of removing Saddam was needed but since then things have not gone well. I must give him credit for saying he took responsibilty for not managing the efforts since as well. But let's face it the advise and second guessing has not helped. This is not a party thing as the Democrats would have you beleive. This is a nation effort and we as a nation haven't done well either. Almost everyone has been critical of what was done but almost no one has constructive ways to get there. Cut and run is no answer either. I certainly hope this last effort works but it never will if the Iraq government and US government never tries to apply the concept to stop the violence. Any one that has at least read a history book about war and rebuilding process knows that there is rough spots.

Wow .. I can't help but be struck by the desperate confusion and at the same time, love for the guys and gals putting their lives at risk as is their duty. How confused the comments. When were so many, so completely mystified by the reality of the military situation that our soldiers are involved in? From what I know... 20,000 troops is not an escalation at all. In fact it barely makes up for the numbers that were in Iraq earlier in the campaign. Some having gone to Afghanistan. But what really bothers me, is that 20,000 troops in such a theatre of war, are by no means a decisive force. Only the tactics can be said to be new. Since the local militias (Mahdi army and similar factions causing the insurgency) are aware that Bush has only two years, it seems reasonable that they will not risk losing their strength to a temporary force. They are likely to simply withdraw untill the Americans do leave, but remain an iritation to the local Iraqi security forces as they become better organised. (One hopes) For a victory of any meaningful scope, the Mahdi army has to be defeated or placated. That would take another, similar 20-30,000 in an all out push for dominance. So, personally, I would advocate, either get out and let then fight it out for the oil that is theirs. Meanwhile make sure that the UN is back in concert with the USA, and vice versa, in the fight against terrorism, so that any further terrorism external to Iraq can be addressed with a multi lateral UN force. Or to send in about 50,000 troops and decisively finish the Mahdi army, with heavy air support. This current strategy doesn't look as if it has any real hope of success at all. It can only guarantee a longer bloody, stay in the country. Which is what I think the Bush puppet-masters really want anyway. I'm sure most of those soldiers do not know if they are doing right or not, they just hope, like we all do. But it saddens me that they are asked to put their lives on the line.

In the processs of iraq war so many american soldiers have lost their lives.if more troops are to come in it will escalate into a big war.so it is not prudent to send more troops.