Bad News for Troops in Iraq

I read an article in The Telegraph stating that George Bush has ruled out any further troop cuts in Iraq. According to this article George Bush has refused to call back any more troops until he remains in office. U.S. military chiefs are already trying to reduce the number of troops in Iraq from 20 to 15 brigades by September. This decision of George Bush will surely make him run into rough waters with the democrats who are determined to engineer a rapid reduction in the number of troops if they can seize the White House in November. According to diplomatic officials at White House, George Bush will not shy away from his efforts to stabilize the number of troops in Iraq which he sees as a way to secure his political legacy. He justifies this decision of his by detailing a considerable improvement in the military situation in Iraq and also drawing attention to the incompetence of the Iraqi government by complementing these gains with political gains. The war’s critics argue as to why this fragile downturn in violence is used by republicans in justifying the large number of troops in Iraq while this same argument was used when violence was at its peak in Iraq. Unless George Bush fails to get any reasonable outcome from Iraq, he won’t be considered a good president.

The second article I read was published in the New York Times states that army leaders are worried about the mental health of soldiers who could be sent back to the front again under plans that call for a high troop sustenance in Iraq for this year and beyond. According to an official survey of soldiers mental health , almost one in four soldiers show signs of depression, anxiety or acute stress. President Bush’s decision to leave at least 140,000 troops in Iraq only exacerbates the situation. Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times, according to a separate set of statistics provided this week by Army personnel officers. Beyond the Army, members of the Joint Chiefs have also told the president that the continued troop commitment to Iraq means that there is a significant level of risk should another crisis erupt elsewhere in the world. Any mission could be carried out successfully, the chiefs believe, but the operation would be slower, longer and costlier in lives and equipment than if the armed forces were not so strained. Even if this war turns out to be success, a dear price is being paid for it in the form of compromise on the mental health of soldiers.

Both the articles are very critical of President Bush’s decision to maintain a large number of troops in Iraq. Unlike President Bush, everybody else sees that this war is a fruitless pursuit and America stands to gain nothing from this war. The two articles contrast in the aspect that the New York Times article uses more of empirical evidence to justify its viewpoint while the article in The Telegraph takes opinions of who’s who of White House to demonstrate its viewpoint.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/washington/06military.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=iraq+war&st=nyt&oref=slogin
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wbush105.xml