[Rhodes22-list] Political: "Winning" the war in Iraq

[Just bent]

Dave,
I agree more troops were needed all along. That's only part of the errors
made.
This could have been completed in less than a year if we went in with
overwelming forced, probably more than 500,000 troops, clear every town &
leave a security force large enough to defend & train. The surge is the
right thing to do, just on a way bigger scale with no rules. They don't have
rules, why should we?

Jb
Just bent
Phoenix, Az



Woten wrote:
> 
> 
> JB,
>  
> The Surge takes us back to the manpower level that existed immediately 
> after 
> the initial invasion - and that level of manpower was insufficient to 
> quell 
> the unrest.  Since then the opposition has organized and  adapted, that
> will 
> make it even tougher to quell any organized unrest using  Surge troop
> levels 
> that were inadequate before.  Without a major x2  breakthrough it's hard
> to see 
> why anyone would expect The Surge to work.
>  
> Prior to the Invasion a well regarded professional military officer, Gen  
> Zinni, developed a contingency plan for the invasion and occupation of 
> Iraq.  
> This was years before Wannabe-General Rumsfeld got involved.   The answer
> for 
> invasion and occupation was 300K+ troops.  With The Surge  we're at
> roughly 160K 
> troops.  Do the math, we're short beaucoup  troops.  The Surge didn't work 
> before, there's no military reason  to think it will work now.  The Surge
> is not 
> the military's idea, it's  driven from the White House.
>  
> So you can "take off the gloves" if you like, but you're at least 140,000  
> troops short of what Gen Zinni projected as needed, and that's a fact. 
> You  
> want me to be a supporter, stand on the street corner and cheer?  No 
> problem, 
> we're still 140,000 troops short.  We are about 1/2 way to what  competent 
> military authority is on record saying we need to do the job, no  amount
> of cheer 
> leading is going to make up that shortfall.
>  
> In fairness, there is one wild card, the Iraq army may be able to assist -  
> or it may not.  I believe the statistic is that on any given day 1/3 of 
> them 
> don't show up for duty, so I am not encouraged.  But I could be wrong 
> about 
> the Iraqi army and I hope I am.
>  
> The political situation is as bad, or worse, than it ever was.
>  
> But the core issue isn't my attitude, the core issue is the on-going  
> military, political, and economic debacle on the ground in Iraq.  You  can
> cheer the 
> effort all you want, but the aphorism is "If you do what  you always did, 
> you'll get what you always got" - and we've done The Surge troop  level
> before, 
> and it didn't work before, and it's gong to be harder to make it  work
> now.  
> Maybe Gen Zinni and his staff really did know something.
>  
> As per my prior post, the only assured thing The Surge buys is time for Mr  
> Bush et al to get outta town - I think it's a political stalling tactic.   
> Again, the idea for The Surge was driven by the White House;  that's your
> clue 
> that there's a political dimension to it.
>  
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
> at 
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Political%3A-%22Winning%22-the-war-in-Iraq-tf4231144.html#a12055636
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.