Posted on 12/18/2006 8:37:30 AM PST by MNJohnnie
On Sunday's Meet the Depressed Mr Newt stuck his whole head in it once again. He said we needed to send 500,000 troops to Iraq. Some questions for Mr Newt
Hey Newt, We sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam at the height of our involvement. How did that work out for us?
Curious, where are you going to get the 500,000 troops for Iraq? How long do they stay? What are they going to be doing?
Gee Newt, I guess I missed the part of your Resume that covered your military background. Which Staff Schools did YOU attend Newt?
Newt has become a perfect machine politician. He simply is picking up on what the DC Political-Media complex wants to hear and saying it. He and McCain are basically the singing the same one note DC Marching song. This way both of them can placate the Right by saying "See we are supporting the troops" and still suck up to the DC noise machine by being against how the Iraq mission is being run by the President.
It is short attention span theater time again. The American people simply lack the emotional or intellectually discipline to face anything that requires sustained effort. So as usually the political snake oil salesmen are crawling out of the slime with the usual simplistic answers and easy fixes. Only problem is what they are trying to selling on Iraq is pure poison. The DC "Conventional Wisdom" on Iraq is, as usual, neither conventional nor wisdom
What Newt SHOULD be doing is listening to what Gen Abizaid told the US Senate when he came back from Iraq to testify to the US Senate in mid November. Newt should become Gen Abizaid's standard bearer. Position himself as the guy covering our troops back from the idiots in DC who STILL have learned nothing since LBJ screwed up "Nam.
For example, Newt could be raising the point that when asked specifically about troop levels by Sen McCain, Gen Abizaid (who only happens to be the actual commander on the Ground in Iraq) all but told McCain he is an utter idiot on Iraq. Gen Abizaid made it clear he did NOT need more troops. Newt should cut himself out of the 2008 pack by being the sane serious voice on Iraq backing up the Military rather then merely howling after the Junk Media pack. This "More Troops" propaganda line is both stupid political strategy and stupid military strategy.
There are 4 reasons why too many troops can be as bad as too few troops in a Counter Insurgency Mission.
Retardation, Marginalization, Friction and Unrealistic expectations.
Too many troops retards the locals efforts to develop their own military/political structure to govern . It takes time and effort to train and blood troops. It especially takes time to train up the cadre to run a serious military. Good NCOs and Officers are not born, they are made. This was on of the major US mistakes in Vietnam. It was easier to just have the US troops take over doing everything then work through the leaning curve of the locals. Problem was once the US no longer had the political will to carry on the mission they simply dumped the problem on an under developed Vietnamese political/military structure.
There is this odd American arrogance that seem to think ONLY Americans can do anything. Everyone else is incompetent and or corrupt. Only problem is the American public, like most spoiled brats, lacks the emotional or mental discipline to stick with unpleasant difficult tasks. Too many US troops would simply retards all efforts to get the locals to the point they can contain or break the Insurgents for themselves then when the petulant American people simply decided they wanted us to go home, there would be no one to pick up the bat for us.
Too many troops also marginalizes efforts to develop a counter political structure strong enough to break or contain the Insurgency. It deligitmizes the locals efforts and makes them simply look as lackeys of the occupying power. Having the US run everything marginalizes the political credibility of the local political structure and spurs the Insurgents propaganda and recruitment efforts.
The more troops the more friction with the locals. Face it, having a bunch of hyper aggressive mostly young mostly male Americans suddenly descend on you town is NO ones idea of a good time. Even in our own military towns there is a lot of friction between the locals and the military. Think how much worse that would be in an alien culture with a living memory of being a colony in everything but name? A heavily armed society with an exaggerated sense of male empowerment? Basically you have two aggressive testosterone drive heavily armed dominate male groups in close proximity.
Unrealistic Expectations. Send a lot troop and the expectation is you can quickly and easily solve all problems and bring the boys home. No, not in a Counter Insurgency. Counter Insurgency is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It takes time and lots of back breaking effort.. Sending a whole lot of troops simply exhausted your fiscal and military resources faster.
There are other things such as the added friction both on the locals and the US forces of having heavily armed, under trained conventional troops performing close combat operations in civilian areas. The counter productive results of a "kill people and wreck stuff" Conventional mentality in dealing with a Asymmetrical threat etc etc etc.
Frankly the DC Noise machine should simply shut up and get out of the US Military's way. They studied Vietnam hard and actually have the right answers here. As in Vietnam, the problem here is the "Washington Knows Best" mentality of the entrenched political media power structure who simply will sacrifice anything and anyone to avoid having to admit GW Bush has been right about Iraq all along.
...you may be right, Clint...or Bears v Chargers.
Yup. They always are!
yeah baby! Play the Rocky song!!!
I always watch it for the commercials.
What happened to the commercials from 2002, when everything was pro soldier? I sure miss those.
I thought Anne Lewis was Barney Frank's sister?
I know that The Bolts are the prevailing "conventional wisdom"...but their record is based on beating losing teams. The only team they beat with a winning record was the Ravens...before agreeing with the proposition, we're going to need to see them beat a tougher opponent...
But the Bears are for real, except maybe Grossman. That Defense is awesome, especially that kid, Hester...
superbowl commercials are great! Best of the best, ususally. Did everyone seee the link to send a card to the troops? I bet Hillary will not do it.
OUCH! Her Thighness speaks!!! My bloody ears!!! AHHHHHHHH!!! HELP!!!!
Kennedy you should STFU. You POS.
Why do we always get a body count instead of a comparison of casualties over the long haul?
Otherwise known as a kill ratio?
I can be reached on a private email for a small wager...This team is Parcells and I think he's built a good one. I think the Eagles are more Thuggish than usual...
Ditto. Teddy, STFU.
Anything can happen.
Saints and Cowboys are playing out of their minds.
And The Criminals (Baltimore) could bring down the Chargers too.
The least costly war of modern times. Amazingly low number of casualties for how long we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Come on Teddy, give some context for a change!
Went to Bush Rally last Prez election and whole Eagles team was on stage.
Fly Eagles Fly on the road to Victory. Banjos!!!
Because the dems are chomping at the bit to raise holy he!! as soon as the war casualties surpass the death toll of 9/11/01.
Is my math off, or is Kennedy's? I always understood WWII to have lasted from 1939-1945. Even if you factor in that the U.S. didn't enter until December, 1941, that is still longer than the U.S. has been in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.