Replies

Isn’t Powell one of those who were yowling and screeching about how Iraq would have been all easy peezy if we’d only gone with th “Powell Doctrine” and gone into Iraq with “more boots on the ground”? And kept more boots on the ground? It’s all Bushes fault. Not enough boots on the ground and too many boots on the ground.

I believe that he's right. There were too few troops in Iraq post-invasion. We couldn't provide security or basic services. An insurgency was able to develop. I was there for the initial invasion, and couldn't figure out why we headed home at the end of May 2003. I'd trade Powell for Bush as CIC any day.

Yep, the amazing “Way Back” machine and all the proven woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Never mind logistics, the ability to transport and maintain all the extra men and gear. The stockpiles of spare parts required, that weren’t yet established. The ability to ship in or generate enough potable water to sustain the health of the troops, or even the existence of so many extra boots on the ground in the required MOSs.

Yeah, magic wands are all the rage in the blame gamers and media propaganda regurgitators.

You might want to ask yourself one really deep question.

If having this surge now, is so threatening to our continued military function, where the ****ing hell would all those mystical magical “extra boots” come from and how would our military still be functioning with them already having been in country for the years required?

And just how do you determine that the insurgency was avoidable, regardless of what troop level was used?

Yep, things aren’t all spiffy neat and pristine clean, so therefore, everything was automatically done wrong.

And we wonder why the enemy has it so easy when it comes to eroding our will to fight in this war.