Did it take "a year or two" for things to "settle down" in Vietnam? I'm getting nervous that Republicans are buying the bullshit being spewed by Bush. The real issue in Vietnam is that we were fighting a proxy war without attacking the source
Look up the term "Operational Overreach". Your heart is in the right place, your strategy is messed up. We did not invade Japan a year after Pearl Harbor. We had to build to the point we could do it. Iraq is a step, not an end point. Think of it as this war's equivalent of the invasion of Italy.
posted on 08/17/2005 7:51:31 AM PDT
( Brick by brick, stone by stone, the Revolution grows)
I'm not trying to second guess the strategy being employed here, either on the civilian or military side. I simply don't know that much about the situation. But I'm getting frustrated about this "stay the course" attitude, which is fine, I agree with it, but we're not getting any indications of any policy, etc. likely to resolve the underlying issues I mentioned.
The situations you describe are different. In WWII, we needed to build up infrastructure, equipment, recruiting, etc. None of that needs to be done today. We have the weapons, the equipment, they're already deployed. And we're not increasing our presence in Iraq, we're starting to bring troops back. So the analogy doesn't really hold. We have the means to do it, just not the will. The only thing I can think of that's holding us back is that a widened war would spike oil prices so high it might bring down our economy.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson