Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
That is not an analogy at all. You have no idea whether more troops would have helped then and you have no idea if they would help now. It is all guess work. The arrogant arm chair quaterbacking and second guessing on this war is amazing. Everyone is an expert.
The point is wanting to win. Wanting to create a stable Iraq. Invading Iraq was always a risk. It would have been a risk with 500,000 solider and support from every country on the planet.
But Iran and Syria were never going to help us.
Right now their own politicians in Iraq are complaining that we might leave. If the democratically elected representatives of the country don't want us to leave, then doesn't that show that the majority is with us and we can win?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....4da9y9bi.html
Why not throw in 500,000 troops to see if it would help? If we truly want to win this thing why not give this a try? Why is pulling out before the job is finished even an option if we want to win?
|
No one really knows, right? Historians will be arguing about this for years. But my point is that a certain number of troops might have kept a lid on things immediately after the invasion but might not suffice to restore order now that things have deteriorated.
If we could reasonably deploy enough troops that it would make a difference, I would be for it at this point. We don't have 500,000 troops, though, and I don't think we can enough troops in to make a material difference. It's not just about desire. There are limits to what we can do.
