http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.htmlDemocrats 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.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...91.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_politicsDuring 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.
"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.
Astronuc said: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 Some guys would fly of the handle over little stuff, others were quiet - almost withdrawn.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.
Bush sent more troops to Iraq in 2007 as part of a strategy called the "surge." This was in response to an increase in violence and instability in the region, and the goal was to provide additional support and security to Iraqi forces in order to stabilize the country.
The surge involved sending approximately 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, bringing the total number of US troops in the country to over 160,000.
There is debate over the effectiveness of the surge, but many argue that it did have a positive impact. It helped to decrease the level of violence and allowed for the Iraqi government to gain more control and stability in the country.
The withdrawal of the additional troops began in 2008 and was completed by 2011. However, some troops remained in Iraq for several years after that to assist with training and support for Iraqi forces.
The surge is estimated to have cost around $20 billion in additional expenses for the US government, including the cost of deploying and maintaining the additional troops in Iraq.