SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: lurqer who wrote (27585)9/14/2003 1:23:59 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) of 89467
 
Here is a recent Powell comment

"We want more troops from other nations because the more troops you have, the quicker you can bring security to Iraq and you can get reconstruction going on a safe and secure basis," Powell said in Baghdad.

from

hindustantimes.com

I saw von Rumsfeld on "face the Nation" this morning. He was discussing the more foreign troops idea, and when pressed came up with an expected number of between zero and 15,000. Since this is about 10% of what is there now, and since the US government says that the US forces must be "drawn down" to not more than 60,000 by March, there's an obvious problem.

Surely, several countries said they would contribute troops if there was UN sanction, but that is just what they said. Do the guys in charge of the US effort have any sophistication at all? Have they ever heard of a "figleaf"? Did it occur to anyone that "when push came to shove", there might be a reluctance to put troops into the Iraqi "meatgrinder"?

And reflect a moment on the troops that were being considered - Turks, Pakistani and Indian. An easy case can be made that troops from any of these nations would exacerbate rather than ameliorate problems.

The Keystone Kops are still in charge.

JMO

lurqer
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext