Do you feel that the Rumsfeld doctrine of fighting many wars with low troop concentrations is working? Because Iraq and Afghanistan both look like quagmires to me.
2006-08-16 03:54:06 · 10 answers · asked by xphile2015 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
thats a formula for diasater
2006-08-16 04:01:22 · answer #1 · answered by W E J 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
How many times a day do we hear about the death toll in Iraq? Which is surprisingly light for a war. How many times a day do we hear that Iraq is another Vietnam? Which it is not! Too many! The simple fact is that we can win in Iraq and Afghanistan, so long as we leave war to the military professionals. We only get into trouble when politics becomes more important than the actual goal. The problem is that liberals in this country lack the will for the fight. I don't feel like speculating on the reasons, but it is a fact. It has been a fact since the Korean War. If we had been plagued by the same attitudes during WWI and WWII we would have lost those wars. Freedom does not come without a price, and for freedom to continue to prevail it must be defended. If the United States is unwilling to defend freedom, then freedom is doomed for the world.
2006-08-16 11:22:38 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, dang it. You're right. I'll admit, we need to follow the Cindy Sheehan doctrine and give up. That's the American way, right - cut and run. Pacifism is the only way to defeat Muslim terrorists. Give in to them. Of course, once they take over America women will be enslaved, homosexuals killed, Hollywood will go back to making "G" rated movies, and "enlightened" liberals like you will suffer under the oppression of wahabist Islam.
Oh - your point is low troop concentrations. So we need to send MORE troops to the mideast? Which is it - bring the troops home, or send more? I kind of like - liberals divided on how to solve this. Any time you can get libs arguing with each other it's a good thing for America.
What DOES need to happen to get this resolved is a united America (gee - united states - what a concept...). The anti-war protests, media, internet, talk shows, etc. are only fueling the terrorists' passion. The more chaos, terror, and dead Iraqis and coalition Soldiers they can create, the more the libs will whine, and the greater their chances that the US will pull out so they can destablilize the region.
Imagine how a truly united America, with everyone supporting the war effort, would demoralize the terrorists! But no, they find so much support for their goals (US out) in people like you, they know that they can succeed.
We used to call siding with the enemy being a traitor. What do you liberals call it now?
2006-08-16 13:11:34 · answer #3 · answered by dougdell 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
America has the know how and the ability to win. We also have Attention Deficit Disorder. We did not let our troops fight in Vietnam, and more troops in Iraq will not solve the problem there. We can win the war in Iraq with our military (not a problem) but we will lose the war with our politicians as we did in Vietnam. It's not that we can't win, it's that we do not have the determination to do so. The Democrats have politicized the war as Kerry admitted when he said, "I voted for it before I voted against it". The Democrats where overwhelmingly in support of the war before and have now lost their nerve. This did not happen in WWII and that was much harder to win than Iraq. Today we forget about our brave men and women and argue politics so that we could say, "I was RIGHT!" in the end. If this was Clinton in Bosnia you would not see any protesters from the left. We could win, but we will not be united again until we are reminded, probably by terrorist on our soil, that we are one nation and these political games are hurting us in Iraq. It is also forgotten by the Democrats that 100% of the reduction in federal government during the Clinton Administration was to the armed forces.
2006-08-16 11:08:03 · answer #4 · answered by Rich E 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i love that the liberal definition of quagmire is any war that we don't win overwhelmingly within a month.
they seem incapable of realizing that things just don't work that way - you can't just run in, beat the "enemy", and then withdraw victoriously. they conveniently ignore the fact that U.S.' military interventions have come with an astoundingly low cost in military lives. while the loss of any soldier is a tragedy, compare this:
Iraq deaths to 6/26/06: 2,565
Afghan deaths to same: 317
Persian gulf war I: 382.
Vietnam: 58,200
Korea: 36,574
WWII: 405,399
perhaps liberals are just allergic to hard work? would you have wanted to give up fighting in WWII because it was a "quagmire" in 1942 when we were making little progress on either front and losing millions of tons of shipping in the Atlantic?
2006-08-16 11:01:04 · answer #5 · answered by JoeSchmoe06 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As is obviously the case, it's working in Afghanistan and not working in Iraq.
What we need is a greatly expanded military but the "guns vs. butter" debate effectively ended with the end of the Cold War (aka WW3) and the winner of the debate was "butter".
2006-08-16 11:10:46 · answer #6 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't you worry mister, I heard the oh so straight rnc chair ken melhman on the news the other day and the dear leader and genrallissimo rumsfeld have a plan for victory: Adapt to Win.
In fact our strategy was never to Stay the Course it has always been Adapt to Win. Just as we have always been at war with East Asia
2006-08-16 11:03:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, I guess not. I mean you probably have a better strategy for fighting wars than the secretary of defense of the strongest military force in the history of the world. So please, enlighten us. How can you win a war against people who hide amongst civilians in civilian clothing and do all their damage via suicide and road side bombs? Please I can't wait for the answer!
2006-08-16 11:03:12 · answer #8 · answered by slyry75 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No.. it is not working. America has not won a war since World War II... they lost in Somalia, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and will lose in Iraq. America just does not have the know-how to win
2006-08-16 11:00:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
No. I think we need to double or triple our men in those countries. Then we would be able to go house to house and cave to cave and kill every enemy in sight. That would be more successful.
2006-08-16 11:01:53 · answer #10 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋