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: Lane3 who wrote (148261)	11/22/2005 11:08:49 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793667

You cannot run a multi-pronged theater wide war from battalion level.

To: Lane3 who wrote (148261)	11/22/2005 11:20:31 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793667

"they have to 'leapfrog' around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out." that is interesting ,, what is the mission? to place our troops in all the towns in Iraq? Or get the Iraq troops up to point they can take care of the towns along with a police force. I thought the mission was turn more over to Iraq troops not bring in more troops. Wasn't there another argument more troops on the ground meant more killing of our troops. does a battalion commander see the total command control or is he/she interested in their battalion assignments. I wonder if need more troops meant to take more territory or more troops meant more safety for the battalion? Lastly, we here the borders are unprotected and we need more troops over there. Now how long are the borders of Iraq against Iran, turkey, syria, etc. How many troops do you need to watch the borders? will it stop terrorists from coming over in some other places.. I would think we want Iraq to build up faster and troops to withdraw ,, not bring more into Iraq.