“Here’s part of the memo, courtesy of Mackubin Owens, that you missed Lefty.”
Which agrees with me: that on the single issue of needing “more troops” was correct. Since you can never really plan what the threat on the ground will actually be, the reasons for those troop levels is less important.
There was NO REAL PLANNING on the part of the WH for post-war Iraq. Otherwise, they might’ve left Garner in charge instead of flailing around with the State Department.
There was NO REAL PLANNING on the part of the WH for post-war Iraq. Otherwise, they might’ve left Garner in charge instead of flailing around with the State Department.
Have you ever had a passing acquaintance with the truth?
Shinseki's numbers were based on nothing. It is a leftist myth which you embrace like a warm woman on a cold night.
The fact is that Gen. Shinseki failed to prepare his service for the kind of war that emerged in Iraq in 2003: an insurgency. The “surge” implemented in 2007 by Gen. David Petraeus was successful not only because of an increase troop strength. It was successful because of the application of a new counterinsurgency doctrine that Gen. Shinseki and most other Army generals had rejected. As Garofano observes, the situation in Iraq “comes down, as it did in Vietnam, to analysis, getting it right, and providing clear alternatives that address or confront policy goals.” In the final instance, this Shinseki failed to do.
Same with the "No Planning" crap. No plan survives the first shot and you should know that lefty based on your communications with the SecDef.
Improvise, adapt, overcome. That is the crap that happens in war. Only left wing loons and other assorted malcontents can't wrap their arms around that truth.
Do you get your talking points directly from Keith Olberman or through a filter?