George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.