Replies

My thoughts as a democrat: I have no idea if anyone here cares about what a democrat thinks--so ignore my thoughts if this is for conservatives only--I think these guys are heroes--in fact I know they are--this article only proves that they are not only heroic, but the best damn soldiers in the world. My issue is, as the article puts it, why did he die? That we have to ask that question--I know I do. I support the troops--did so from the start--but I don't understand the minimalist approach to the whole thing--if this is war--then war it should be. Kill and destroy--that's why war is hell--and throughout the entire ordeal, as many Iraqi soldiers as possible were allowed to walk back to their homes because it was reported that Saddam forced them to fight. Well, who do you guys think are setting up bombs and ambushing our troops now? Should we have killed all those men walking back and laying down their arms? Well, we did not want any prisoners--why not? The problems in Iraq now are not Al Qaeda sponsored--they are Iraqi insurgents--they should have been disposed during the battlem in my opinion. It is of course, only an opinion from a complete ameteur at war strategy. Good day.

Hi Eduardo,

I got the entire book that was writen from the article by the author and was riveted by the accounts.

I also certainly recognize that many who disagree with me politically also love and support our troops with their thoughts and prayers.

The author of the book and article does maintain that many of the fighters, even at that long ago stage were from outside Iraq, however and not from the general population as you appear to present.

He also does a good job of explaining (as do some of the other writers of the accounts at the time from your side of the political spectrum) that it wasn't a minimalist approach as much as a surgical decapitation both in design and reinforced by opportunity.

General Franks maintains in his book, which I haven't quite finished, that the plans were his commands and not top-down in strategic elements.

I think that one of the problems in our political polarization is that we give the President and his administration too much credit for the economy, the detailed military execution and many other things that are really outside his functionary abilities. This is true for Clinton, Bush and yes, even a President Kerry should there be one.

Best to you.

The problems in Iraq now are not Al Qaeda sponsored....

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume what you said in that fragment of your post is true. However, even if it is true, it ignores an essential element: This is not a war on Al Qaeda alone; this is a war on terrorism! It's true: Al Qaeda had declared war on us in 1998, which Clinton chose to ignore, but terrorists and their sponsors are in more places than just Afghanistan.

Prior to the regime change, our country had been at war with Saddam since the early 1990s. That war never ended. There was a cease fire, the terms of which Saddam chose to ignore. Prior to the regime change in Iraq, Saddam was paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In my book, that makes Saddam a sponsor of terrorism!

9/11 didn't happen because of things our country did. It occurred because of the things we didn't do prior to the President George W. Bush Administration's steps to fight terrorism.

For those and many more reasons, I not only support our troops, I support their missions, their Commander in Chief, and my country!