Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Carragher who wrote (39873)	4/17/2004 9:58:05 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) of 793914

Turkey didn't help and that could have contributed to some of the problems we have today. I doubt it. The regular troops were substituted by special forces. #reply-19956971 Not enough troops. In hide sight we need more troops. Did we need more troops in the beginning? Did we need more troops three months later? Many in congress said so but did our military? A troop strength of 10-20 soldiers/1000 population (i.e. 250,000-500,000 for Iraq) is standard US military thinking, see Force Requirements in Stability Operations James T. Quinlivan, 1995 carlisle-www.army.mil Thomas E. White, Secretary of the Army, and General Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, strongly suggested a troop level of several hundred thousand soldiers but Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz dismissed them; White was axed. I would like to know if the troops on the ground over in Iraq in the last year was a military judgement or political judgement. It was Rumsfeld's judgment. Part of his optimism had been due to the military success in Afghanistan.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next