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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159502)3/23/2005 2:21:26 PM
From: Orcastraiter  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
A larger force would have included more MP's and peace keepers. Especially if there were a large contingent of NATO and UN forces available.

But the biggest error made which swelled the ranks of the insurgency was disbanding the Iraqi army. They should have been retained and paid a good salary. They could have been the back bone of reconstruction efforts and stabilizing the country.

Incidentally the notion of keeping the Iraqi Army was put forward by several Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Bush said no.

Imagine if we had the larger force in Iraq. Then we could have retained and processed the Iraqi Army into the new Iraqi Army. It would have taken more personnel up front to do this...but it would have been worth it. And in the long run would have saved lives and money.

And a little more patience would have found Arab nations joining the coalition, and wider participation from the UN...and the US would be enjoying world popularity on the moral high ground.

Instead...we are goats.

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

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News