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: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (178158)	12/18/2005 4:01:33 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem though is reality on the ground. There's been lots of talk about 'breaking' the army and the speculation is that Murtha is really talking for the military when he says to get out as soon as realistically possible. Regardless of what Bush wants to do, the original plan called for a fast reduction down to a core 30,000 troops, less than 1/5th the number there are at this late date. Since he declared the end of major combat operations, it wasn't the plan to have 30,000 combat troops running around actually fighting either. In addition to a people problem, there's also an equipment and money problem. Just a short time ago, there were reports that reconstruction had slowed to nothing because of the lack of US funds. Who knows what the heck is being said in private at the WH but can we really afford to be in Iraq for years to come at this pace? I don't think so especially as they're also itching to go bomb Iran soon. Besides, the plan now seems to step up the bombing and start having an air war instead of a ground war. That sounds like we're going backwards to shock and awe but it does require fewer troops in Baghdad.