Posted on 10/29/2006 10:52:46 AM PST by John Jorsett
The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfelds negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals. Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfelds not listening to his generals.
Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not newor difficultto find, such as extensive commentary in General Frankss book, American Soldier. The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.
Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.
UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagons request to correct its editorial.
AShepard, I understand what you're saying. The ROE is another problem that should be addressed.
Would you like to study a wonderfully unique battle about this war? Check out Fallujah 2. We actually fought two "Battles of Fallujah". The first one was a disaster. The second one is probably the most brilliant victory by American forces since Tet, which crushed the Viet Cong as a fighting force. As I said in an earlier post, Fallujah has been a relatively peaceful place ever since.
You'll enjoy that battle and it will confirm your belief that taking the gloves off does work.
I'm stumped as to why we don't use that same exact strategy on other hornets' nests in Iraq. It'd work perfectly in Sadr city!!!
The NYTimes dishonest? I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
BTTT
What is your expertise, if I may be so humble to ask?
FWIW - I talked recently with some guys recently back from Iraq. They argued we had plenty of troops, but deployed wrong. We have lots of folks in a few large bases for force protection, but only a handful going out of the wire on patrol.
They argued we should have significantly fewer troops, with a higher number going out of the wire - that this would result in more casualties, but a better chance of winning.
What do y'all think?
The NYTimes......Publishing All the history it chooses to CREATE!
Isn't it obvious to even the most casual reader that the New York Times no longer even has a glancing encounter with anything remotely truthful?
Clean it up or lose posting privileges.
Ah John Murtha, I thought I recognized you.
Thanks
MD Allah was getting over the top in insults!
You can't trust the military.
(/sarcasm)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.