Quote:
Originally Posted by yesman065
[If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends.
|
Time to worry about that was back in 2002. I was. Anyone who read those 2002 posts know damn well how much I feared the mistake now called "Mission Accomplished".
Three conditions are required for war. 1) A smoking gun. 2) A strategic objective. 3) An exit strategy defined by the strategic objective. These were posted here how many years ago? Five?
Your logic is too little too late. Damage was done long ago. Just another example of damage that does not appear in numbers until years later.
You are using the same logic that massacred so many of my generation. Those who have contempt for the troops used that rationalization. Even a poker player would never be so dumb as to use that rationalization. At the poker table, one who blindly used such rationalization becomes easy money for everyone else.
A smart man learns early when he has created an unwinnable situation - and folds long before the damage is evident. Our last hope for victory required 500,000 troops in country over one year ago. And that was a conservative number. Military doctrine puts the number at 600,000. You are supposed to know such basic concepts when somehow taking a Gen Curtis LeMay's 'big dic' attitude. Even LeMay conceded that Nam could not be won. But to get his attention, we even had to sacrifice 10% of this nation's nuclear bombers.
Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.