Friday, January 05, 2007
Ollie North: More Troops = More Targets
Unless the mission of any additional troops is very carefully defined, I'm inclined to agree with him. Oak Leaf has more here. I couldn't get the original link to work for some reason.
Also see The Moderate Voice.
Via Memeorandum
Also see The Moderate Voice.
Via Memeorandum
Comments:
Every troop deployed anywhere needs a well-defined, achievable mission that leads to an equally well-defined end state. That applies to the troops already in Baghdad as well as any additional troops sent there. I'm not sure I get Ollie's point beyond that. Is he in favor of bringing all the other troops home if we haven't done that for them?
P.S. There was an LA Times article in the Early Bird today about progress being made in Ramadi. Must be the result of Democrats' leadership in Congress, huh?
P.S. There was an LA Times article in the Early Bird today about progress being made in Ramadi. Must be the result of Democrats' leadership in Congress, huh?
Ok, I guess that's a truism.
But what about, few troops = easy targets.
Which is worse, fewer easy targets, or many hard targets?
Have you seen the AEI report. The guys on TV seem to make a good case for putting in more troops in Baghdad in selected areas. I think the plan calls for 7 brigades, or about 20,000 troops to beef up Baghdad and Anbar..
But what about, few troops = easy targets.
Which is worse, fewer easy targets, or many hard targets?
Have you seen the AEI report. The guys on TV seem to make a good case for putting in more troops in Baghdad in selected areas. I think the plan calls for 7 brigades, or about 20,000 troops to beef up Baghdad and Anbar..
"Must be the result of Democrats' leadership in Congress, huh?'
This is my answer to that question:
If any of this is true, "big if", if you ask me, all I can say is Thank god, the gloves are coming off, and we are going to fight the war, to win the war. Something which I predicted following the democratic congressional sweep.
Prolonging the war no longer hold any political advantages. As a matter of fact, it's now seen as a disadvantage, if not won in a very short order, the democrats could been seen as the party that won the war, in the long run. So you can understand why the administration, and the republican party might see it in their interest to achieve a quick and decisive victory now.
And you people thought that voting democrat would help the "resistance"cause....simple minds.
Originally posted as response to Raed's Plan B
This is my answer to that question:
If any of this is true, "big if", if you ask me, all I can say is Thank god, the gloves are coming off, and we are going to fight the war, to win the war. Something which I predicted following the democratic congressional sweep.
Prolonging the war no longer hold any political advantages. As a matter of fact, it's now seen as a disadvantage, if not won in a very short order, the democrats could been seen as the party that won the war, in the long run. So you can understand why the administration, and the republican party might see it in their interest to achieve a quick and decisive victory now.
And you people thought that voting democrat would help the "resistance"cause....simple minds.
Originally posted as response to Raed's Plan B
And you people thought that voting democrat would help the "resistance"cause....simple minds.
madtom, care to revise following the democrats' letter to the president and radio address today, both of which followed the litteral hijacking of their agenda by Cindy Sheehan and company earlier in the week?
madtom, care to revise following the democrats' letter to the president and radio address today, both of which followed the litteral hijacking of their agenda by Cindy Sheehan and company earlier in the week?
And, mt, I forgot to mention slimy presidential hopeful Joe Biden's comments this week. His statement that he thinks the administration has lost and is merely prolonging the defeat until a democrat is in the WH stands the risk of being a self-fullfilling prophecy. He must now act to ensure our defeat before the 2008 elections in order to not be wrong and have his own foreign policy and military "expertise" thrown back in his face during the campaign. He only wins if we lose.
Post a Comment
