The US military is the most capable force the world has ever seen at defeating enemy armies in the field. If most of our army is properly deployed and we have an adequate or better logistical situation it unlikely anyone can hold the line against our firepower. But to control an area rather then just smash the enemy army you need "boots on the ground". Its not like the US is a small country or has a small army, a situation like Iraq isn't a strain on our maximum possible military ability, but if it continues long enough it will be a strain on our ability to deal with the situation while not increasing the size of the army and while maintaining deployments in Europe, Afghanistan, Korea, and elsewhere. Its hardly an insurmountable task, it just makes things a bit rougher on the people in the army.
I don't disagree with any of what you said above.....but I do think we need more men in Iraq.
I remember reading an interesting article somewhere. It said Saddam (assuming he is still alive and leading the resistance, if not whoever is leading it, if it does have central leadership) didn't make a good choice by resisting in force now when America is at its strongest in Iraq. The ideal time would be when we had mostly pulled out and were supporting a fledgling new Iraqi government, then the Baathists could attack that new government. With a small US presence that we might have had by then it would be difficult to protect the new government but the government wouldn't be strong enough yet to protect itself.
Maybe so but I don't think Saddam is the one leading it nor do I think its only Iraqis who are attacking our soldiers. I also think it was an unorganized effort that is becoming more organized as it goes along. I also think it was inevitable, but it appears we were not prepared for it. What's most disappointing is that the Iraqis, themselves, are doing little to sqelch it. I think the majority of them are glad Saddam is gone, but as of yet, many of them still don't seem to want to fight for their freedom.
ted |
