Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (43278)	5/10/2004 3:08:03 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793723

Good post. I agree with just about everything in it, though I think we do need to think about Rumsfeld's departure, if only because the low troop levels are his responsibility. He pushed the generals hard for fewer troops than they wanted leading, IMO, to the vitalized insurgencies which, in turn, lead to the prisoner abuses as missteps were taken to obtain intelligence. Neither the insurgencies nor the abuses would have taken place, or would have not been as pervasive, if adequate troop levels were in place. We now risk demoralized troops because their stays have been extended. Demoralized troops are an accident waiting to happen. I see most of our problems relating to inadequate staffing-and that is Rumsfeld's direct responsibility.