To: Fred Mertz; Wally Cleaver; sauropod; Jeff Head
Comments?
2 posted on
05/25/2003 11:34:56 AM PDT by
SLB
To: SLB
We're doing now what we should have done from the beginning. We're approaching 200,000 troops, which I believe is what Shinseki said we'd need to stabilize the country. Too bad his thoughts were dismissed. We could have avoided a lot of problems. But, better late than never, I guess.
3 posted on
05/25/2003 11:46:59 AM PDT by
saquin
To: SLB
Prelude to invasion of Iran?
7 posted on
05/25/2003 4:00:47 PM PDT by
Momaw Nadon
(The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work unless it's open.)
To: SLB
This is not a "new commitment." though the anti-Bush press is trying to spin it that way. The 1st was publicly committed back in January, it's just that they're finally arriving now.
To: SLB
Franks wanted to bring another division in via the Northern border, to have a Northern front and also the extra troops to make shock deeper and surrenders more likely. But the Turks nixed that part of the plan.
The backup plan had the Kurds and CIA run the Northern front but it gave Franks less boots on the ground than he would have prefered for control and mop-up. At first, it appeared that the lesser number might work out in spite of everything, but with the criminal control problems and the bad press, the original number of troops in the original plan was seen to be necessary.
Wars are like that. You deal with the reality and fix what didn't go perfectly.
To: SLB
I suspect we are sending another 20,000 troops to stablize Syria. Iraq already is neutered.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson