Replies

"please don't push it on everyone else as sanctimonious fact."

Its irrelevant now, but both generals Powell, Shesneski, and a host of others expressed concerns on how many troops were going in.

Soooooooooo....we need enough to fight for a long time. The combatant elements will slowly morph to Spec Ops and Air taskings because its obvious our nation does not have the stomach for a slow burn return. Sadly, it seems our nation's resolve is only best after we are attacked. But then our troops and commanders only have a two year window to wrap things up to get ready for the parade. We aren't going to have another parade for a long time. Everytime we are to commit to war, it should be for total annihilation of the enemy. Much like spraying fire ants in the backyard. I am astounded that we are in negotiations with an unwilling country to stop their march to nuclear weapons, and their leaders want to wipe another country off the map. I guess the UN lets anyone in these days.

I still don't see the relevance of the number of troops in the invasion to today's situation. It's clear that no more were needed to dispose Saddam. It appears to me that decisions made AFTER the fall of the regime have contributed to the difficulties.

In as much as Syria's and Iran's strategy has always been to create just enough havoc to bloody the nightly news, and having MORE troops stationed in hostile war zones would have increased the cost, increased the number of Cindy Sheehans, and potentially increased the number of US casualties, I think it's a pointless exercise in finger pointing.

Just an observation: Powell was NOT a general when we were going in, and there are those who disagree with Shinseki even if someone like Abizaid does agree with him.

The opinion of someone that we needed more personnel in a post-Hussein Iraq does NOT make it a fact that more personnel would have altered the outcome. It is conjecture.

I do not disagree with your observation that the political short-sightedness inherent in our political system has been, and is going to be our weakness. And I agree with your observations regarding Iran.

But what is it that you are suggesting? Are you suggesting we load up a bunch of B-52's with Mk82's and carpet bomb Baghdad? Is that your suggestion? Because if it isn't, what exactly do you mean by 'total annihilation"?

We are not in there to destroy Iraq as we were to destroy Germany or Japan in WWII. The Irai people are not involved in war production, and like it or not, we are involved in an experiment in nation building. The alternative being to make it into a glass parking lot. There will be plenty of time for that. As an American, I appreciate the fact that we are attempting to do something that history will judge us kindly on. The Nazis and Soviets could carpet bomb or wipe out civilian populations to try to achieve their goals, and it didn't work for them. That won't work now.