Saturday, November 20, 2004
Firm Grasp of the Obvious Department...
I guess if you want to make a buzz in the New York Times these days, all you gotta do is state the obvious.
The headline reads: Senior Marine Officers See Risks in Reducing U.S. Troops in Fallujah.
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
You cannot practice war without a measured acceptance of risk. And common sense would tell you that if troop availability is finite - and it is - then keeping every battalion in Fallujah for months would be risky, too. Because if you don't accept risk in Fallujah, you accept it somewhere else. Simply put: there's not an officer in today's military who DOESN'T see risks in reducing U.S. troops in Fallujah. But similarly, there's not an officer in the military who doesn't see risks in NOT reducing troops there, either.
It's one of the principles of war: economy of force.
The Marine intelligence report also reaches the earth-shattering conclusion that the insurgents are not going to stop fighting. Oh, let the Manhattan cocktail party fetes begin!
...And this is news? What's "brutally honest about calling the sky blue?
General Freitas also states the obvious: "We have no intention of walking away and creating a power vaccuum in Fallujah."
Ok, so what, then is the point of the NYT article? To criticize a position nobody is holding?
Well, will someone please explain to me how one undercuts the other? Both can certainly be true at the same time.
The headline reads: Senior Marine Officers See Risks in Reducing U.S. Troops in Fallujah.
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
You cannot practice war without a measured acceptance of risk. And common sense would tell you that if troop availability is finite - and it is - then keeping every battalion in Fallujah for months would be risky, too. Because if you don't accept risk in Fallujah, you accept it somewhere else. Simply put: there's not an officer in today's military who DOESN'T see risks in reducing U.S. troops in Fallujah. But similarly, there's not an officer in the military who doesn't see risks in NOT reducing troops there, either.
It's one of the principles of war: economy of force.
The Marine intelligence report also reaches the earth-shattering conclusion that the insurgents are not going to stop fighting. Oh, let the Manhattan cocktail party fetes begin!
Although the resistance crumbled in the face of the offensive, the report warns that if American forces do not remain in sufficient numbers for some time, "The enemy will be able to effectively defeat I MEF's ability to accomplish its primary objectives of developing an effective Iraqi security force and setting the conditions for successful Iraqi elections.
...And this is news? What's "brutally honest about calling the sky blue?
General Freitas also states the obvious: "We have no intention of walking away and creating a power vaccuum in Fallujah."
Ok, so what, then is the point of the NYT article? To criticize a position nobody is holding?
The report offers a stark counterpoint to more upbeat assessments voiced by military commanders in the wake of the Falluja operation, which they say completed its goals well ahead of schedule and with fewer American and Iraqi civilian casualties than expected.
Well, will someone please explain to me how one undercuts the other? Both can certainly be true at the same time.
Comments:
Stopped by your blog to get some ideas for mine http://vietnaminpictures.blogspot.com/. As the name implies it's mostly pictures with a few comments. Take a look if you get a chance, I'm not selling anything ! ---Jack--- vietnam war memorial
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 2:31 PM
: 2:31 PM
