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: KLP who wrote (215559)	8/13/2007 4:37:28 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) of 794003

No, I wondered if McCaffrey said the same thing in 2001 or 2002 as he did in July of 2007????? He or any of the other Generals who are now saying we need more of everything? Why didn't the Congress hear them, if they told us before that we were so woefully understaffed and undersupplied? GWB has asked them continually to speak up.... Have they, and we just didn't hear them? Did the media print their words or didn't they? I'm wondering why the disconnect? The Chief of Staff of the Army at that time was General Eric Shinseki. Eric was opposed to the Iraq strategy as developed by DOD. Eric stood firm on the fact that the US needed to commit at least 550,000 troops to the battle in Iraq. Rumsfeld disagreed and fired him. Shinseki would not have stood firm unless he had solid support from the generals on active duty at the time. Then Rummie brought Schoomaker out of retirement to take the position. You can't ever convince me we did not have even one 3 or 4 star general on activ duty who was eligible for the job. Far more likely is those who were eligible agreed with Shinseki, so Rummie would/could not promote them. Schoomaker was hired because he had a coupla Delta tours and the grand strategy was to conduct raids. Most of the raids produce results but they have not won anything because we simply do not have the troops to provide security after raids and just as we did not have enough after the first surge.That left huge openings for the insurgents to reinfiltrate cleared areas. And that is what they have been doing since the insurgency began. So here we are in the first surge of the second phase one. Nothing has been won. Nothing is secure and 5 more GIs died in Baghdad this morning. Meanwhile the Army and SOCOM continue to sendout press releases announcing wins. I still believe what I thought a year ago. We have screwed this pooch to death. And there is no military victory available based on our current mission. The only way out is to change the mission. I do agree with what McCaffrey heavily inferred in his remarks. Leaving a severely weakened army on a battlefield places them in strategic peril and it is a mistake of the highest order. Our battlefield enemy continues to find weaknesses in our strategy, tactics and equipment and exploits them relentlessly. But, hey, no fear, we have lots of highly paid, retired generals in study groups analyzing the problem. Your questions are all good. When you figure this puzzle out please explain it to me. Just remember, the surge is only a temporary solution to a long term problem. All the surge in the world will not secure Iraq unless we have sufficient troops on the ground after the surge ends..and we don't. Using metrics in our battle doctrine says we don't. God help our troops in Iraq if this war expands before they get out.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next