<<<I've heard this same type of statement from Rumsfeld and others. It implies that our failure to "win the war in Vietnam" can be attributed in part to the fact that the people fighting in Vietnam were "draftees" or, as you referred to us, "conscripts." >>>
A great peice of writing........
The tune of the green beret kept moving thru my mind as I read it.
Does not mean I agree with all of it, but I think it proves my point to Bilow that US soldiers do not desert. Might freak out or 'lose it', and have to quit, but no cut and run. Its a matter of pride. Leaders quit, when ordered to, or when the mission is impossible.
Our mission in Iraq must be made crystal clear. And the 3 or 4 deeply divided ethic divisions must not be tortured into organizing againt us. With the country leaderless, that is
not yet the case.
Two Generals collaborated on a book, with a statement that this war on terror is as important or even more important than WW11. So we have to win this first (or 2nd) major battle in Iraq.
It is hard to define what the "win" means here, but it would have several components
1. Do not let the insurgents demonstrate they can defeat us nor organize the country against us.
2. Insure that the new government does not use their oil production as blackmail for the developing world.
3. Prevent a civil war.
Items 2 and 3 require that we maintain a presence in the region for a long period.
We are heavily engaged in Item one at this moment in Fallugha.
Militarily it is possible, politically its a mess. Al Jeezera or other local Press would say we killed 600 women and children, doctors at the hospital say they were only 19% of the casualties.
So once again the %^&iing Press is stirring the pot, stoking the fires of hatred with lies.
Sig |
