"You can hardly read a story about Iraq these days without seeing an Army or Marine officer say he doesn't have enough troops to accomplish his mission. Senior officers respond that this is what junior commanders always say. That's not quite true. Commanders in charge of secondary missions often ask for more resources than they need, not recognizing their missions are less vital. But the calls for more troops in Iraq come from soldiers training Iraqis, from soldiers trying to secure Baghdad, from soldiers in Anbar. If all of these are secondary missions, where's the main effort? The truth is there are not enough ground forces in Iraq, and military officers are finally saying so in public."
... I've pretty much agreed with most that Bill Kristol has said, in this article, and others. Unlike his pal, Fred Barnes, Kristol seems to be a free-thinking conservative, not a republican "Monika". What's a "Monika"? Well ... it's someone who constantly sucks on ... you get the picture!
Army considers more combat units for Iraq - from the Washington Times - support for Kristol?
Are these people worth the effort?
... what Kristol doesn't say is that the level of "unsuccess" in Iraq and Afghanistan is, in fact, directly related to our efforts. Our Troops are being held back by their political leaders. More Troops, larger Army? OK ... but lets allow them to do the job!
IS BUSH "WAGGING THE DOG?" Or, is he just a "Neville"?
No comments:
Post a Comment