Which makes more sense. Rapid deployment of a overwhelming force. Or drive in circles until you get killed???

Question

This entire war has been mismanaged from the begenning.

Gingrich and his Congressional Cupe de etah Closed bases and reduced the size of the Army. Now we lack the resources to clean up Iraq.

This is a mess a big mess. and it's going to take a major sacrafice to turn it around and fill the hearts and mind of every wana bee terrorist with dread of the Americ Army.

Sorry if it isn't PC But as a Vietnam Vet I still think you need to Bomb the enemy at their source.

When S A attackes you with state sponsered terrorists then you Bomb SA not the neighbor.

When you let them get away with attacking you they will come back and do it again.

Answer 1

Rapid deployment. But what makes even more sense is to go after the terrorist where they train(Pakistan) and those that finance them(Saudi Arabia).

Answer 2

Well hindsight is 20/20 bla bla...

Obviously the current state of things is more akin to driving in circles waiting to get killed. But the simple fact is that we can't just step in and stop a 1500 year religious conflict. No amount of troops can do that.

That said I completely agree with the above poster...IF are troops are to be deployed they belong in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. It's sad to see Bush kissing the Saudi's oil-stained asses after all we've been through in the last few years.

Answer 3

Rapid Deployment of an over-whelming force. Every school kid knows it. But our government (including R's and D's) seems to have short memories and lack common sense).

This is not 20/20 hindsight. Like I said, every school kid knows what to do, how to do it and when to do it.

Yes, this is another revolting development our government has gotten us into. The worse is probably yet to come. When we with draw our troops, what happens in the mid-east?

I personally think the entire area may break out (again) into tribal warfare.

Answer 4

The former makes more sense, but in a way I indirectly blame liberals for the state of the war if we had gone in with overwhelming force and killed 30,000 Iraqis we would have heard howls and protest from liberals all over the world about all the innocent lives lost.
In order to be PC and avoid criticism we have used American soldiers as sacrifice with even more lost of life but the difference is their is no end in site, and even more criticism on top of it.

Answer 5

They thought "Shock and Awe" WAS overwhelming force, remember?
The mismanagement is even worse than you remember - they were trying to have LESS of a standing army because technology was making "boots on the ground" obsolete.

Answer 6

I agree.

Since the so called "surge" is apparently helping, they are extending the "surge", which really just means more boots on the ground on a permanent basis, which is what they should have done in the beginning.

Now it's a disaster, Rummy screwed the pooch, Bush let him screw the pooch, and now we are going to be screwed in the end.

Answer 7

The endless war in Iraq is still a total mess, and it is time for the USA to leave....and let the Iraqis run their own nation.

There is NO victory plan in Iraq. We can send 250,000 more troops, and it won't make a difference.

Answer 8

This war was doomed from day one. It has cost billions of dollars and helped polarize this country. As far as sacrifice goes, haven't we already done that? Over 3,000 dead American troops and countless Iraqis. Sad.

Answer 9

Bush and Cheney drank the PNAC koolaid and believed they were walking into a cakewalk.

Answer 10

I continuously bid finally minute... or a minimum of on the comparable day if I wont have the means to get to pc at end time. It annoys me whilst theres like 4 days to circulate and its already close on your meant max bid!!