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.
Good caller. Good points. Dems have no plan for anything.
Yeah they do. They've got BIG plans for what to do with our money!
And....in school the admin practically begs the parents to get on the free breakfast and free lunch program...whether they need it or not.
One problem with that scenario... Quarterbacks. Peyton Manning will choke again in the AFC Championship (provided they get that far) and he doesn't have any defense whatsoever to help him out and Rex Grossman will be the Bears downfall. If any defense can win a Super Bowl, it is the Bears defense. I just don't think it's going to happen though.
And I beg to disagree with you, the Bears-Colts would be like watching paint dry. The only time it would be worth watching is when the Colts have the ball. Otherwise, the rest of the game you have a horrible offense against a horrible defense. What's so great about that? Bring on the commercials...
Money makes the world go 'round
The world go 'round
The world go 'round....
Or, if they are working hard enough to make more money than the upper limit allowed and they live in a taxaholic state like Maryland.
Teddy could fix everything by:
1. Stop eating.
2. Get together with Tereeeeeeza Heinz Ketchup and Rockeffeller and Pelosi and the head of each poor family could be hired in some sort of service to those rich bast...s.
3. If their hearts are bleeding, let 'em cough up their own dough for a change.
You got that right.
I remember reading a column by Arianna Huffington (aka, Zsa Zsa Gabor) predicting up to 50,000 U.S. casualties in the initial invasion.
I lived and worked in NYC for more thn 50yrs.
Single, no dependents, no exemptions.
I know about taxes.
50K is the magic "Viet Nam" number. Hard to believe how much they root for the deaths of our soldiers.
Have you recovered yet?
Whatever. They pulled those #s out of the same place they pull the #s of the hungry.
...Funny how the Left are such military experts.
Defense is the Cowboys weak point, I grant you that. But they are a team that can be fired up...very emotional, like their coach. They play to his mood almost...They'll step up and the offense should outgun the Eagles' offense...
Teddy wants to "escalate the war".
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.