Many of the Green (Army and Marine) leaders felt this way -- but military leaders always feel this way. It's their job to be careful and nothing ensures victory as well as overwhelming force. Unfortunately, the limit on the number of troops the military is allowed to maintain is set by Congress and Congress was not willing to raise that level. They did so slightly, several years later. Had they acted in a significant manner much earlier, the life of our men and women in the armed forced would have been much better over the last few years. In hindsight, dismantling the Iraqi military is seen by many (most?) to have been an error. At the time? Hmmm... that's the beauty of hindsight. of course, if we had kept the Iraqi military intact, people would not be complaining about the issues caused by that. Could this effort have gone better? Of course! We can always do better! However, let us not forget that the best plans of any military organization usually go to hell the moment the enemy comes into play. War is a very dynamic game. It's easy to look back and second-guess, after you finally know the enemies actions. It's also impossible to prove or disprove the theories you make with the benefit of hindsight, because it is usually too late to test them. We had 70k casualties at the Battle of the Bulge. We won the Battle of the Bulge. In comparison, the casualties during this campaign have been relatively light. It's not light if you're the casualty, of course! Liberal predictions were for tens of thousands of casualties just to enter Baghdad. So, while not everything has gone right, much has gone well. That's really all you can hope for in war. As General Sherman stated, "War is hell."
That was the single largest downside of selecting Iraq. However, the positives for selecting Iraq outweighed the negatives: Iraq has 1/3rd the population of Iran. This is easier to manage within budget. We had already pretty much destroyed its armed forces. It was much easier to win a war with Iraq than a war with Iran. Unlike Iran, the government of Iraq was very unpopular domestically. The Iraqi’s were ready for a new political direction. Iraq was geographically perfect. It is reachable it by land and by sea annd it borders our entire next round of targets. America is, to a great extent, a sea power. We don’t fight well when we can’t use the ocean for resupply. Everyone hated Saddam. The Muslims wouldn’t even stand up for that ruthless sonofabitch. The only friends he had were the French, Russians, and Germans whom he bribed — and they wouldn’t do anything for him but whine. We didn’t seriously believe that we would face French, German, or Russian troops defending Saddam from the United States Marine Corps. We were already spending taxpayer dollars to enforce the no-fly zone. We didn’t want that situtation to last forever. Saddam was completely ignoring the agreements he made which ended the last war — giving us clear legal justification for an invasion. Iraq has an awesome population. Until The Baath Party took over in 1965, Iraq was doing very well. They are politically aware and ready for the future. As far as countries go, Iraq shouldn’t be much more difficult to turn around than East Germany — if we do it right. Read the entire article this list came from here: Why Iraq
Such backtracking... What happened to weapons of mass destruction? Bush himself said WMD was the main reason for invading iraq, and admitted we never found any... If that wasn't the main reason, you're saying the president lied to the American people; right?
Not so much, I originally wrote that up in 2005. That's on Bush's list. It didn't make this list because this list answers a different question. This list answers the question "Why Iraq as opposed to XXX." One, Bush listed a plethora of reasons for the invasion and WMD was just one of them. Read the actual document listing the reasons for the invasion on Whitehouse.gov. Two, we have found WMD in Iraq, just not nearly as much as we believed. Much of the WMD may have been evacuated to Syria in the months before the invasion. But, we may never know. Not at all. Read the documentation on Whitehouse.gov. Don't let yourself be swayed by inaccurate liberal propaganda.
I've got a video clip of him saying it was the main reason... If you don't believe me, I'll post a link when I get back to the apartment later... In the same clip, he says that we didn't find any WMD... Also, if there was any evidence that they sent it to syria, wouldn't we persue that?
Do you care to explain how do you know about military thinking or as matter of fact anything else related to military? Where did you serve and what was your rank? I just think it is funny when people who their whole "military experience" is limited to playing couple of war games on their xbox pretend to be an officer with extensive military background.
Will, stop reporting every post you don't like! And stop playing dumb! If you don't agree with the rules here or how the forum is run, then don't participate. Most of us have better things to do....
Rob, I've only reported rules violations -- which you specifically asked for. Source: Personal Attacks Will Not Be Tolerated! If personal attacks are OK, I'm OK with that too. You're the Game Master, you make the rules.
Will, stop acting like a kid. Or are you going to report me for personally attacking you now??? Don't always agree with you but you seem like an OK type of a guy. So stop being childish (attack #2).
And yet they support Ron Paul with donations... IIRC, You can't because it is illegal to be partisan in uniform.
Cut the cutesy bullshit! This is not a personal ATTACK- and you know it! Neither is this: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4841641&postcount=26 Or am I missing something?
That's pretty weak Will. I've been owning much of our recent debates, and I don't believe I have ever reported you. I resent being reported with the intention of being permanently banned. This is getting a little outrageous.
Rob, that is a direct personal attack upon my personal life -- which you specifically spelled out in your post. That is, in my opinion, a direct personal attack by one poster on another poster. Hmmm... It could be me or it could be you. It's certainly nothing we should discuss in this thread. When I look at the text of the rules, I'm sure that I'm following them to the exact letter. (Well, except for my one joke thread!) But... you are sure or the exact opposite -- and you wrote the rule I'm quoting most often! As such... I'm confused. Either I can't read or you can't write. Could be either. I'm really OK with either answer. I don't expect you to be perfect and I have vast experience with my own imperfections. I can't talk right now due to the infection, but if you want to chat we can hook up on AIM/MSN/Yahoo.
That's not even close to true. Then don't attack other posters. Don't blame me for your own actions. Take some responsibility!
proteindude: Read the rules and don't violate them. Source: Personal Attacks Will Not Be Tolerated!Heck, I've got infractions for breaking rules myself. If you don't like the rules, don't complain to me. I didn't make them.
Are you saying that you think I have posted ban worthy material? That's what clicking the Bad Post button is in this instance. Your assertion that I should be banned.