Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: RMF who wrote (190547)	7/1/2006 7:36:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) of 281500

The 150k troops would NOT have had to be "maintained" (it was a different situation from Iraq). Had we waited until we were able to amass 150K troop-strength for an Afghani operation, it would have needed to wait until the following Spring. That's why they opted to go with a SpecOps centric plan to overthrow the Taliban with internal forces comprising the N. Alliance and other "warlords". The same goes for the overthrow of Saddam. It required 7 months to position 500K in US forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1990-91 for Desert Storm. Such an operation would hardly have been a "surprise" as OIF was. Saddam didn't believe we had the necessary forces in place to attack Iraq and that was a miscalculation on his part, IMO. It's just a MESS. On my part it's not just hindsight, cause I've said all along that using the Northern Alliance as mercenaries to run that war on the cheap would come back to bite us. I guess you should have gone to West Point so you'd be able to present better plans and operations. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next