You said: a bit defensive are we?
Nope. I believe I fall more into the Patton school of war: Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
I don’t believe in being defensive.
your patton boots could not have crushed the numerous jihadists out there without the majority of them either, and not in any specific order:
1) not participating in theater, because softer targets were more appealing
2) leaving iraq because situation was hopeless
3) more likely to disperse to other areas more friendly because of increased numbers
4) open to the use of wmd to of which they would have likely have been according to intelligence reports at the time and not hindsight.
5) increase in jihadists because of collateral damage
6) there is no number six
your attacks are unwarranted. you bully. you cannot defend your position so you attack the character of your opponents. you have bitten on the idea that because the media says iraq is a failure, you fall in line with it.
you cannot see the forest for all the trees in the way.
you criticize as though you are infallible and believe in time of war everything should go as planned.
the war to change regimes in iraq went a month.
the peace plan would have been implemented, but then a new war emerged, with an insurgency sponsored by iran and syria and the al qaeda group. you believe it is one war, but it is not.
there were and are different conflicts being waged.
i am glad we had people in place to execute this the way they did, or the body count would have been greater and the damage inflicted on the enemy less.
jmho
teeman