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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (159337)	3/20/2005 4:40:40 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think that number (400,000) was pretty much agreed upon by all the generals, including Powell. That was the approximate force size used in Desert Storm, but there was a lot more contribution of troops from other nations that time. Powell was always in favor of overwhelming force. Rumsfeld likes light and fast. There were plenty of other generals that said more troops were needed. The primary need for the large number of troops was to maintain security. It's obvious that the small force we have there now cannot provide that security. There's too much ground to cover. In addition the insurgents discovered quickly that the back line was under armored and under armed...so that was the focus of the guerilla attacks, which has pushed the casualty rate ever higher since the declared "Mission Accomplished". The Powell Doctrine was violated on every aspect: Clearly defined mission. Overwhelming force. Exit strategy. The Iraq war failed to meet all of those criteria. Orca