(news article) http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070601/ts_csm/atoll
Senior Military Analyst Michael O'Hanlon in Washington:
"If that [a sustained level of violence from insurgents and terrorists] continues, what it means is that you're not actually weakening them, but you're just allowing them to regenerate, and they are capable of doing so...If the intensity continues ... then it looks like a strategy that is ultimately futile...It is possible that you could have progress and not see US fatality rates go down for a while, but I think it's relatively hard to imagine that we would start losing 100 people a month for the summer and be able to term this strategy successful."
(more below)
2007-06-01
09:16:02
·
5 answers
·
asked by
What I Say
3
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
"Staying the course" by increasing troops has not done a damn thing for years. More and more soldiers die and you don't hear about any significant improvement to security threats. Not only does increasing U.S. losses question the "success" of military operations, the numbers of casualties (curiously never includes the wounded) reported by the media is apparently not just the "toll" of the war. It's the toll of a questionable strategy. Why doesn't anyone look to the president or our military leadership when it comes to who is really not supporting the troops with their actions? All the talk from Bush about "support our troops" is just a bunch of words given the way they are being pointlessly sacrificed.
~
2007-06-01
09:16:35 ·
update #1