A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Abject surrender



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14  
Old March 24th 04, 09:52 PM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Cub Driver
writes
This is, in fact, the very error Bush is repeating today. He is
creating today a situation in which the full military might of
the USA is merely sufficient to keep a few thousand terrorists
at bay.


An interesting point, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Iraq
hardly represents the "full military might" of the U.S.


It's serious in that you've got very few forces available for other
crises. If $SOMEWHERE blows up, the US is going to have some seriously
unpalatable choices to make.

We took nearly
as many casualties in the Battle of the Bulge as there are troops
stationed in Iraq,


We lost more troops on the first day of the Somme than are currently in
Iraq, but that doesn't mean our current forces aren't seriously
stretched at the moment. There were a *lot* more men under arms in 1944
or 1916 than we have now.

and the Air Force and Navy are hardly engaged. And
the troops are doing many more jobs than keeping terrorists at bay.
They are, in effect, re-creating the country.


True, but that still means they're committed and unavailable for other
tasks.

And wasn't it you, Emmanuel, who said there was no way back? In
Vietnam and Korea, at least, there was the option of reuniting the
country under the communist north. What is the option in Iraq? Should
we dust off Saddam, apologize, and give him the country back?


That's one option. (Bang goes *his* credibility!) More likely, pull out
with a hasty "national government" that immediately does a Yugoslavia
and fragments explosively into a Kurdistan north (which the Turks may or
may not act against), a Sunni centre and a Shi'ia south which may or may
not unite with Iran (with or without their consent...)

Short of those options, the US has tied a large portion of its strength
into Iraq for some time, and that's a serious impact (because it's not
just the troops the it's the troops recovering from the deployment,
and the troops preparing to go out there, that eat into your available
strength)


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Abject surrender Jarg Military Aviation 30 March 25th 04 03:18 AM
Vic Tatelman's Pictures of "Dirty Dora", "Dirty Dora II" and the Surrender Mission Adam Lewis Military Aviation 0 February 3rd 04 03:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.