Is the government of Iraq able to secure Bagdad?

[Technosoul]

Do you think that the Bagdad government could evoke security in Irag if they really wanted too with thier local police and military personel? Or do they acturally need our help?

[Praxius]

They have already complained about not having decent equipment and weapons to actually be a good enforcement. Also, they have had problems with the US not allowing them to control certain parts of the country. They also complained about inadequate training against whom they are fighting.

There has been a request for weapons, equipment, and training mainly.

At this point in time, until they get what they need, they won't be able to secure the area.

However, now that the factions are not being protected by the president of Iraq, chances are, now they might actually be able to do something without their hands tied..... to it remains to be seen.

[peacepinkie]

Who cares?!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: peacepinkie Who cares?!

Well, every family who has a son or daughter in the military if they were sent to Iraq, that is who cares.

Bush has stated that his objective was to make sure the government can defend it's self and maintain some order in the country before we pull out our troops.

And so all the pro-war and anti-war people would care because our involvement is relative to "if" they can hold the peace without our troops.

This was outlined in the last State of the Union speech and Bush feels that if we send in more troops to help clear the areas that are "hot beds" of violence then their troops could secure the areas thereafter on their own.

So why did you simply say "who cares".... are you here to debate or just to mock the topics?

[notworthabean]

define "without our help"? you mean without our soliders doing msot of the fighting? yes. without our air support? not now, but probably in the future. without our guns? not for a while.