In article <45b02dc1_1@news.chariot.net.au>,
John H wrote:
>> What was Bush and Rummy thinking when they decided to occupy Iraq with
>> only 120,000 troops?
>
>Well for a start they didnt think ....Period!
>You need a brain to be able think and "Brush" certainly hasnt got "much up
>there"
>or they wouldnt have even gone there.
>
>Wolfowitz the idiot right wing zealot convinced them otherwise with
>falsehoods .
>
>Now they are paying for assisting one sectarian mob against the previous
>sectarian mob who were
>ruling to the exclusion of each other.
>The sectarian hatred in Iraq has been going on as long as one can remember
>Recipe for disaster if you exclude any one group from power.
>
>US will either "pull the rug" and get out like Vietnam or still be there in
>20 years.
>
>If they stay it will cost them so much moneterily and troop lives it will
>make
>them a 3rd world country, which is OK by me, as at moment they believe they
>are the true world "godfather" and are effectively acting like the British
>Colonial power of old.
>
>Using the Wolfowitz manifesto principle of "we are the strong ones,
>so if we disagree with a particular country, then we should just go in and
>belt the hell out of them"
>This hasnt got US anywhere yet, except in a big mess, and wont anywhere
>as you dont know how to fight guerilla type war, which is what you have got
>in most areas your troops are in active combat.
>
Wolfie was on record as saying that 35,000 troops would be
enough. Standard Pentagon planning said high 300,000s. Many generals
agreed. Source;
_The threatening storm : the case for invading Iraq_,
Pollack, Kenneth M.
Pollack is reality-based career CIA planner and not a PNAC that I can
tell. He shows how Saddam was really really evil (he was) and had to
be dealt with by the west, one way or another.
It's an interesting time capsule, being written before Bush started
beating the WMD and support for terrorism drums WRT Iraq. Saddam really
*was* a problem, the author felt that containemenmt couldn't hold for
ever and Saddam had his two sons to take over and they were as bad as
he was. OTOH, the author dismisses claims that Saddam had WMDs by
then, or supprted international terrorism in any meaningful way.
>Vietnam proved that, and the US generals still havent learnt that bombing
>the hell
>out of a country doesnt work and that civilian populations become like the
>French resistance and give you hell back, then disappear back into their
>daily lives.
>
It's an Air Force thing more than a a universal opinion. The AF
thinks that wars can be won without putting boots on the ground.
Sometimes they get their way (Kosovo) and sometimes they don't.
It seems that for GW1, the AIr Force made a case that no troops would
be required and almost got their way. When Schwarzkopf came it, he
founds teh inter-service battles and won. This is described in;
_Air Power_, Budiansky (also Battle of Wits)
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 |
