![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |