Replies

Rant On:
I have been strongly behind the WOT, and the campaign in Iraq, I have also stated for at least the last 18 months, and maybe longer the current optempo is going to break the Army and Marine Corps. I completely backed Sec. Rumsfeld when he uttered you go to war with the military you have, BUT we have been in Iraq for nearly four years, and September 11th occurred 5 and half years ago and I don't think an increase the manning levels of the Army and Marines has even been suggested by this administration until December of last year.
I originally was in favor of ~50,000 more soldiers for the Army and 25,000 for the Marines, about two divisions and one division respectively, but have come to the conclusion the more like 100,000 and 50,000 should be requested by the Pentagon and authorized by Congress. I am not suggesting these troops be added to the number in Iraq but put in rotation with the existing optempo so troops have more time between deployments.

I do not know if more boots on the ground in Iraq is what is needed, but I DO believe the troops their must be utilized differently. Peter King, a Sport Illustrated columnist in his Christmas Eve Column wrote about an Army Sgt. in Germany who was preparing for a third deployment to Iraq, he recollected so of the activities his team undertook during their last deployment and apparently the either were an EOD team, or were utilized as an EOD team and he commented on how they would have to return to the exact same area for a few days in a row and remove or destroy an IED that had been placed there since the lat trip to the area, and I was nearly screaming at the screen that someone, ANYONE should have ambushed the terrorists, insurgents, bad guys, whatever, the next time they came to setup their bombs. I contend as long as the military is fighting the war in the described manner I truly wonder about the outcome.
IMO the US should own the night, and if you are outside you damn well had better not do ANYTHING even remotely misundertandable as terrorist or militant activity or you will take a .308 or .50 BMG upside the head from a sniper, a hail of minigun fire from an AC-130, be on the receiving end of a couple strafing runs by an A-10 or Apache, or just chopped up in withering fire from an ambushing platoon or company lying in wait for you Mr. Terrorist to do something stupid.
The status quo does not seem to be working, I do not know if the situation is as bleak as we are led to believe by the media, but perception becomes reality, and enough of the voting public bought it November of 2006 and eventually the Dems will get their wish of the US leaving Iraq, and once that happens they can start on trying to get us to leave Afghanistan and after that we can go back to waiting for the next attack on US soil.
I was really surprised the Dems took back the Senate, the House was not a surprise, but I thought they would hold it with less that a 20 seat edge, rather than the ~30 they ended up with, but even-so the dem majorities are razor thin and the Republican Party needs to be ready to clearly state why the Dem proposals are bad and organize some kind of opposition, the time for bold measures was missed when the leadership remained largely the same but I have yet to see anything or anyone that excites me for 2008.
Rant Off

I'm no military expert. So I'll refrain from commenting on strategy or troop deployments.

From all that I read, the troops volunteer to go back, they understand their job, they feel they are accomplishing something good.

Re-enlistment among the troops who go to Iraq is extremely high.

Armchair generals have an agenda so I am suspicious of their pronouncements.

We had a president who meddled in the military operations in Viet Nam. Now we have a President who listens to his generals. If they were wrong, and they may have been, that will be corrected.

The actual war dead is about 2600 for the four years. Tragic but hardly what could have been. I'd say we've done darned well.