[Bulwark]

And your solution is?

Well, it's quite clever to say that now. It's like throwing a 747 into a dive and when it's 1000 feet above the ground doing 500+ MPH turning to the copilot and saying "and your solution is?".

Obviously the campaign should have been better managed from the start. More. Boots. On. The. Ground. I can't tell you how often I hear that. There just weren't, and still aren't, enough troops to get the job done.

[Pox]

More boots on the ground is a load of BS. More boots on the ground in this type of operation equals more targets for IED's.

Most of us know what the solution is for this, but understand both our citizens and the worlds cowards basically will not allow such "tactics".

The Romans knew how to handle this, even though they did not have to deal with a relentlessly seditious media.

[encm(ss)]

Bulwark: Obviously the campaign should have been better managed from the start. More. Boots. On. The. Ground. I can't tell you how often I hear that. There just weren't, and still aren't, enough troops to get the job done.

And Bulwark, what are your credentials that make you an expert in war planning over the military? For only 7 high ranking Army that mostly wasn't there, there are were thousands of professional military that agreed.

[68skylark]

Obviously the campaign should have been better managed from the start. More. Boots. On. The. Ground. I can't tell you how often I hear that. There just weren't, and still aren't, enough troops to get the job done.

You may be right -- I don't know if there's any way to know for sure.

For what it's worth I'd like to respectfully disagree -- seems to me that more people would have only offered more targets, and would have encouraged the Iraqi people to take less responsibility for their own future.