the generals had a ratio of troops needed but we did the war on the cheap to prevent a draft.
2007-02-06 08:41:03 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. I rather think that if we had attempted to maintain 200,000 troops and the draft had been reinstated, there would have been far, far more public outcry, possibly even impeachment proceedings. This war was doomed from the start.
And let's not forget, 200,000 troops or not, the enemies we fight use guerrilla tactics, akin to Vietnam. We can't wipe them out without wiping out most of the country and its population.
2007-02-06 08:49:56 · answer #1 · answered by spewing_originality 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO
Because Rumsfeld ruined our Army with his stupid Transformation policy.
We only have a 502,000 total Army population With a 17 to 1 support to combatant ratio.
While the War contractors were getting fat selling the DOD magic future weapons our actual number of fighting men has dwindled to that of a 3rd World Nation.
And if Bush is the genius the RedsStaters claim he is. Then he knew he was sending a small force to their death.
The notion that you can smart bomb a Country until they elect a democratic president. Is crazier than Star Ship Trouper.
Go big Red Go
2007-02-06 16:55:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It still would have gotten bad, Shinseki estimated into the half million troop range. I think if we had at least 458 thousand or so troops we could have kept the insurgency bottled up.
2007-02-06 16:50:25 · answer #3 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, history tells us otherwise. We lost in Vietnam and look how many troops we had there. Those rebels or militants, whatever you want to call them, thye have religious fervor invested in what they are doing...And we are the hated enemy. Nothing, and I mean nothing, will deter them from preventing their country from getting overrun by America.
2007-02-06 16:49:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you were willing to keep them there forever. Is there enough oil in Iraq to pay for that and still leave Bush with a buck?
2007-02-06 16:47:05 · answer #5 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We can still win. But it probabaly would have been accomplished a lot faster if they didn't rotate those initial troops home until the job was done.
2007-02-06 16:45:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
There is no "winning", there is only occupation. Does anyone seriously believe we will change the mindset of the Iraqi people?
2007-02-06 16:48:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, we'll never know. The war isn't over yet and don't give up and say that it's lost. Please have some faith in our soldiers.
2007-02-06 16:48:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Arabs will still win and crush their immoral enemy.
2007-02-06 16:43:55 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
we will win if dems don't cut and run.
2007-02-06 16:44:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋