On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:19:03 +0000, JohnH wrote:


And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let
humanitarian considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind
the Republican Guard, et al, and waste their young asses when they
turned to run.

That would have been down right treacherous on our part. Part of
the pre-war strategy was to bribe many of the Iraqi military not to
fight.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...5-082954-2864r


And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than
the generals on the ground. More troops does mean more targets.
Rumsfeld isn't asking for more troops.

I would suggest that it is Rumsfeld who thinks he knows more than
the generals on the ground. He is the one who kept pushing for a
leaner war plan. Rumsfeld has fought this war from a business man's
perspective, not from a general's. Do you remember the heat Gen.
Shinseki took for his estimation of occupation forces?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:30:44 -0400, "thunder" wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:19:03 +0000, JohnH wrote:


And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let
humanitarian considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind
the Republican Guard, et al, and waste their young asses when they
turned to run.

That would have been down right treacherous on our part. Part of
the pre-war strategy was to bribe many of the Iraqi military not to
fight.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...5-082954-2864r


And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than
the generals on the ground. More troops does mean more targets.
Rumsfeld isn't asking for more troops.

I would suggest that it is Rumsfeld who thinks he knows more than
the generals on the ground. He is the one who kept pushing for a
leaner war plan. Rumsfeld has fought this war from a business man's
perspective, not from a general's. Do you remember the heat Gen.
Shinseki took for his estimation of occupation forces?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm


Wow, what an unbiased, totally believable source:

"Citing a senior Iraqi source, the French newspaper reported that Soufiane al
Tikriti, head of the Special Republican Guard in Baghdad, ordered his troops not
to defend the capital against attack by U.S. and British forces, and
particularly to hold fire against coalition helicopters circling over the city."

Far be it from me to argue with a French newspaper citing a (unidentified)
senior Iraqi source!.

I am in no position to judge the number of soldiers needed on the ground. The
generals fighting the ground action are in such a position. As of now, they are
saying they don't need more US troops. General Abizaid has no reason to lie, but
he does have reason to succeed.

The goal is, and must be, for the Iraqis to take over their own security and
government. Of course, if our only aim is to steal Iraqi oil, then for sure we
should have more troops to prevent the Iraqis from ever doing that.

Respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:53:04 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Wow, what an unbiased, totally believable source:

OK, I'll give you that wasn't the most credible source, but how about Gen.
Tommy Franks. Bribery was used, and it was a smart thing to do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...q-bribes01.htm


Far be it from me to argue with a French newspaper citing a
(unidentified) senior Iraqi source!.

I am in no position to judge the number of soldiers needed on the
ground. The generals fighting the ground action are in such a position.
As of now, they are saying they don't need more US troops. General
Abizaid has no reason to lie, but he does have reason to succeed.

The key word there may be *US* troops. We seem to be trying to recruit
Poles, Indians, and God forbid, UN troops, to help out.

The goal is, and must be, for the Iraqis to take over their own security
and government. Of course, if our only aim is to steal Iraqi oil, then
for sure we should have more troops to prevent the Iraqis from ever
doing that.

That goal would be a lot easier to attain if the country was stable. I
don't believe our goal is to steal Iraqi oil, but to increase our
influence in an unstable area that is vital to our interests. An
interesting read:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html

You may like the job Rumsfeld is doing, but I think GWB ought to fire him.
It appears that his Office of Special Plans was the source of much of the
faulty WMD intelligence. Another interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact