You would think a Smart C&C would know better.
503K in the US Army what were they thinking???
2007-07-11 07:40:21 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So I can only assume Iraq was a War game to practice for Iran. But they learned they need more boots on the ground.
2007-07-11 07:44:04 · update #1
Because of "Noble Lies" and people who fall for it. That simple.
2007-07-11 07:44:00 · answer #1 · answered by Page 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
I’m sorry to say that the 3000+ American deaths in Iraq had nothing to do with this portion of the Bush Administration’s education. They have only started to learn that the American voter has more power than they thought we had. We replaced the balance of power in the last election and we intend on doing the same thing in ’08.
Although the Congress in place at the moment is not providing proper representation to “we the people”, the mood in Washington has changed. It’s a whole new awakening for the Bush Administration as well as the rest of the “so-called” representatives we have just given a “Mandate” to.
2007-07-11 16:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You still don't need a massive army. Do you realize the logistical support necessary to keep even this size army in the fight? The size of the army is not the issue. The methodology is ill advised. We should have airstriked any area that resisted. You cannot fight a war if you are the only side worried about collateral damage.
Early on we were not returning fire to Mosques and other such restrictions. When they reached out to slap us they should have pulled back a bloody stump.
.
2007-07-11 14:53:17 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That been the major error for years, and it obvious. The PC argument in the beginning of the war about being liberators and not occupiers was the problem. We should have used our greatest wartime success as our model, WW2. We should have gone in as occupiers with overwhelming force. Taking control of the country as we did Germany so we can directly manage governmental progress, instead of relying on a very uneducated population, with rampant corruption, to run the country immediately after the fall of a dictatorship that lasted a generation. I haven't been surprised about the power grab between Iraq's many factions that followed. We caused the void and did not fill it properly.
This being said, the war wasn't wrong, just mismanaged.
2007-07-11 14:51:31 · answer #4 · answered by gracilism 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Exactly why do you think it's not working? The number dead in Iraq is WAY lower than Vietnam or WWII. Yes, the process is a fiasco, but that's more about strategy than number of soldiers. Frankly, the soldiers handled their job very effectively. Only when we tried to turn them into a long-term police force did we run into trouble. That's not what they're trained for, nor is it the job of an army.
Whatever else you think about Rumsfeld, the small elite army concept probably makes more sense than any other.
2007-07-11 14:45:11 · answer #5 · answered by skip742 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No cost or sacrifice too great ! It is all about making big money on oil. Oh! There was also this thing about war time presidents always being reelected. There is only one way to defeat terrorist and that is to have all the people working together to find them and report to police. Now only the military is fighting the war while everyone else goes over the speed limit on the highways. We need to have everyone serve in the military and be qualified to defend out country, but that would politically bad. ~
2007-07-11 14:46:26 · answer #6 · answered by Pey 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I honestly think they actually knew what kind of fiasco they were getting the country into. (Why not? - they lied about everything else). They knew their real challenge was to keep the American public patient. They rode the 9/11 train as long as they could. After that, they had such a mess on their hands it looked irresponsible to leave it behind.
The purpose of this war was to create military contracts and reconstruction contracts, to win a second election for the Republicans and, of course, to gain access to one of the planet's most important reserves of oil.
The U.S. is right now in the process of installing permanent bases in Iraq, from which we will fuel the Iraqi civil war for years to come, even after official disengagement.
Pure Machiavelianism.
2007-07-11 14:46:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
A. Crush their army, check.
B. Find Saddam, check.
C. Make sure he is brought to justice, check!
D. Provide security, check.
E. Boost infrastructure, check.
F. Oversee and facilitate the installation of a democracy, check.
G. Hold elections, check.
H. Target Al-Queda and foreign insurgency, check.
Ya youre right, its completely not working.
2007-07-11 15:01:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
there should have been at least one more infantry division on the ground at the onset-but that's what happens when political hacks whom have never worn a uniform declare themselves more qualified to make decisions than the generals in theater.
however,I don't quite get the correlation between more boots on the ground meaning less U.S. casualties.
2007-07-11 14:53:47 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Seems that West Point officially dismissed the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" as just a bunch of useless crap.
Bring the troops home now. At this rate we will have to bury 2000 more soldiers by the time the idiot leaves office!
2007-07-11 14:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by Truth 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
lies and the belief and complete trust in lord Bush,add to that the deceiving nature of the Noe-con and big corporations,and you are in for boots on the ground 101.the start.chow bud
2007-07-11 18:05:08 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋