| "So you are saying that not enough troops was Rumsfelds plan all along and he did not tell the commanders on the ground. " No, I'm saying it was Rumsfeld's plan all along to have exactly the right amount of troops. I have no opinion on whether or not commanders on the ground were told. I do have an opinion that these commanders are educated enough to know the difference between a war against 'stateless' terrorists and a war against another country. If we were at war against Iraq or France for that matter, I'd agree with overwhelming, occupying force. After all France would be interested in what is best for their people and would surrender. Having a similar force in Iraq wouldn't force Zarqari to surrender, regardless of how many towns and provinces you occupy. Terrorist can pack their bags and move to another country for about seventeen dollars, we can't. Now think about this hypothetical: All terrorists ceased 100% of their activity in Iraq today and we somehow knew they would never bomb another site in Iraq. We'd be able to come home right? In fact we'd be forced to come home. However, there would still be 'x' amount of terrorist in Iraq plotting against the west. Second hypothetical: We successfully occupy all of Iraq with 500,000 troops. No more Iraqis or troops are killed and no more suicide bombers or IEDs are built in Iraq. Terrorists sit at home, some go to Somalia, some to Syria the rest to yet another location. I personally don't believe they will go home to pick up a garden hoe and become model citizens. I believe they will engage the United States again only this time on our soil. I believe our commanders should know this. I believe the ones who don't understand this or refuse to believe this need to be replaced. Not because they are idiots, they just need to be sent stateside to wait for a possible war against a 'nation-state' like North Korea where their way of thinking & waging war makes sense. |
