More troops bandwagon
Several Senators want more troops in Iraq. To do hat is nto clear. Unlike Vietnam, in Iraq, the commanders on the ground do not think they need additional troops.
Indeed, the so called resistance is avoiding attacks on US forces now in favor of attacks on infrastructure targets. The best way to protect these targets is not with US troops but with Iraqi militia/police.
In a guerilla war, you defeat it by making it impossible for guerilla units to manuever without being captured or killed. At this point these units are being captured and killed even when not maoving. While someone will ocassionally pop off a rocket propelled grenade. the so called Iraqwi resistance is incapable of manuevering in combat size units. In Vietnam, the US was fighting regimental and division sia=ze units in some battles. In Iraq, the enemy cannot muster a saquad size unit. The fact that they have resorted to terrorist attacks shows how impotent they are.
Major combat operations
Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations, the Democrats and Saddam's Baath party have similar goals. They are both trying to discredit the US liberation of Iraq. Democrats are challenging not only the rational for liberation, but the post combat phase of operations. They are doing this without offering any reasonable alternative. They are merely bitchin.
It has been clear all along that Saddam's goal no matter how ineffective was to make the US liberation as messy as possible. The weak attacks are his way of achieving his objective. The Democrats, recoginizing that they were wrong in opposing the liberation of Iraq, want to make the post liberation ophase as messy as they can for President bush. It is clear that for the forseeable future, the President will have to overcome Saddam and the Democrats.
It is sad that less than two years after 9-1, the Democrats have reverted to form and oppose much of the war on terro. At home they are trying to gut the Patriot Act while attempting to spend money on their constiuency groups, i.e. public employee union jobs. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they are second guessing, not the President, but the military commanders. More troops in Afghanistan would change the mission from liberation to occupation.
In Vietnam, the Democrats would not listen to the commanders who said more troops were needed. In Iraq, they will nto listen to commanders who say more troops are not needed. There is no reason to trust the Democrats on national security issues now either.
Several Senators want more troops in Iraq. To do hat is nto clear. Unlike Vietnam, in Iraq, the commanders on the ground do not think they need additional troops.
Indeed, the so called resistance is avoiding attacks on US forces now in favor of attacks on infrastructure targets. The best way to protect these targets is not with US troops but with Iraqi militia/police.
In a guerilla war, you defeat it by making it impossible for guerilla units to manuever without being captured or killed. At this point these units are being captured and killed even when not maoving. While someone will ocassionally pop off a rocket propelled grenade. the so called Iraqwi resistance is incapable of manuevering in combat size units. In Vietnam, the US was fighting regimental and division sia=ze units in some battles. In Iraq, the enemy cannot muster a saquad size unit. The fact that they have resorted to terrorist attacks shows how impotent they are.
Major combat operations
Since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations, the Democrats and Saddam's Baath party have similar goals. They are both trying to discredit the US liberation of Iraq. Democrats are challenging not only the rational for liberation, but the post combat phase of operations. They are doing this without offering any reasonable alternative. They are merely bitchin.
It has been clear all along that Saddam's goal no matter how ineffective was to make the US liberation as messy as possible. The weak attacks are his way of achieving his objective. The Democrats, recoginizing that they were wrong in opposing the liberation of Iraq, want to make the post liberation ophase as messy as they can for President bush. It is clear that for the forseeable future, the President will have to overcome Saddam and the Democrats.
It is sad that less than two years after 9-1, the Democrats have reverted to form and oppose much of the war on terro. At home they are trying to gut the Patriot Act while attempting to spend money on their constiuency groups, i.e. public employee union jobs. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they are second guessing, not the President, but the military commanders. More troops in Afghanistan would change the mission from liberation to occupation.
In Vietnam, the Democrats would not listen to the commanders who said more troops were needed. In Iraq, they will nto listen to commanders who say more troops are not needed. There is no reason to trust the Democrats on national security issues now either.
Comments
Post a Comment