It is the political situation holding us back: The guys over there already COULD have wiped out most of the terrorists along ago, and sent most of the remaining running.
As long as we have to worry about:
colateral damage,
"public relations'',
''Political Correctness'',
what the Germans, Russians, Canadians and Kofi think,
and guys like Murtha and Kerry, the New York Times at home
we could put 10,000,000 troops in there and not achieve 'pacification'.
All that more troops with the current political / diplomatic / pseudo-religious situation there would achieve is to provide more 'targets of opportunity for the bad guys, and more resentment throughout the world, because it would indeed be seen even more as an occupation force... And would lessen the likelyhood amongst the "good Iraqis" that they would be willing to take on any responsibilities of fighting or governing for themselves.
A little less political / diplomatic restraint on the troops, and we could do the job with even fewer troops than we have now.
Amen LegendHasIt
Bremer ain't the only one second guessing the pros. He's just the latest. All year long the dims and their dimmer cousins, the socialist pc radicals, have been pimping a few mistakes that were made in this noble cause of protecting our country. playing politics is playing into the terrorists hands.
It ain't just the usual liberal elite in the rotten apple or the beltway bums still stewing about the gore/kerry failures. Out west they really know how to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
www.geocities.com/tpenny737/protest031905a.html
Whatever cave that monster osama is holed up in I hope he's got a radio that gets Bill O'Reilly so he can get a few ideas on rattling some blue state cages and watching the rats jump ship.