Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
True Spanky.
You don't really want to be making this comparison. Bush suffers.
S_A_M
P.S. I've been meaning to ask you -- Remember that you argued before in the context of the surge that -- IF more troops would have helped in 2003 (like all the "liberals" in the "Democrat Party" were saying) there is no reason they would not help fix things in 2007?
Ok. So, IF the surge fails now in 2007 -- doesn't that mean your men Bush and Rummy were right about troop levels all along, and more troops wouldn't have mattered in 2003/04?
Take heart!
|
Fact is, with multiple militias now entrenched and supplied, what we should be learning from the surge is that the troop levels being realistically discussed won't do the job. If Bush wants to "win" this war, he needs an Iraqi national government with a firm hand an at least a million troops. And he needs a counterinsurgency strategy that includes a very large number of Arabic speaking troops scrubbing the landscape while other troops fully secure all the borders.
Otherwise, he's just throwing fuel on the fire. A foreign power doesn't prevail in a local civil war through air power and control of bases in a few population centers.
Alternatively, time to declare Kurdistan separate, throw them adequate support so we maintain a strong US presence in the region, and let the south start resolving some of its own issues.
