“its a full-on Crusade, like D-Day at Normandie”
Please stop using WWII analogy. You know it’s incorrect. We don’t have a draft today, unlike previous Wars.
Our DOD budget per our GDP is not what you would think it should be if we are fighting WWIII. We don’t have this Armanda of men wading across Iraq for the final push to remover terrorist, like we did in WWII.
Instead of raising the number of troops for the final “Crusade” we are cutting back. If Iraq is the center of the War on Terror then we should continue to meet them head on with the finest military in the world. Instead we are going to rely on the Iraqi people to defeat the remaining terrorist.
> Please stop using WWII analogy. You know it’s incorrect. We don’t have a draft today, unlike previous Wars...
> ...We don’t have this Armanda of men wading across Iraq for the final push to remover terrorist, like we did in WWII.
What you say is true, to a point. What your argument lacks, tho', is a sense of proportion. Iraq isn't Nazi Germany, it is a bizarre enclave in the Middle East, with plenty of oil and not much fighting nouse. Hence there is no need for a draft. And no need for an Armada.
It is, however, very much a solid clash of wills and ideology, of Good against Evil. With this comes a resolute requirement for valor and courage from the fighting troops, exactly as was needed in 1944.
No, with due respect I stand by the WW-II analogy. Proportionally-speaking, it is quite accurate and appropriate.
Maybe the greatest failure of President Bush was not to mobilize us for war after 9/11. At that point he could have had a military of any size of his choosing, gotten industry in line and started a genuine world wide crusade.
He didnt and now we have what we have.