Posted on 01/10/2005 12:47:56 AM PST by churchillbuff
Self-proclaimed "neoconservative" Andrew Sullivan thanks "neoconservative" Weekly Standard for running another anti-Rumsfeld article; (didn't the neocons - including WStandard - used to love Rumsfeld, when he first launched their war? Why must he be blamed because he bought their bad idea?):
"""WHY RUMSFELD MUST GO: Fred Kagan sums it up eloquently. Kudos to the Weekly Standard for keeping up the pressure: ""With more troops in Iraq during and immediately after the war, we would have been able to do the following things that we did not do:
* Capture or kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were at that time still concentrated in combat units and had not yet melted back into the countryside with their weapons and their skills.
* Guard the scores of enormous ammunition dumps from which the insurgents have drawn the vast majority of their weapons, ammunition, and explosives.
* Secure critical oil and electrical infrastructure that the insurgents subsequently attacked, setting back the economic and political recovery of Iraq.
* Prevent the development of insurgent safe havens in Najaf and Falluja, or at least disrupt them at a much earlier stage of formation.
* Work to interdict the infiltration of foreign fighters across Iraq's borders.
If the U.S. Army had begun expanding in 2001, we would have been able to:
* Establish reasonable rotation plans for our soldiers that did not require repeatedly extending tours of duty beyond one year.
* Avoid the need to activate reservists involuntarily.
* Dramatically reduce the frequency with which soldiers return from one year-long tour only to be sent immediately on another.
* Let the troops that would still have been overstrained know that help really was on the way.
The U.S. military did not do these things because of Rumsfeld's choices. And those choices have greatly impeded our ability to win the war. I have no ill-will for Rumsfeld. He's the object of much unfair personal criticism. He's a deeply kind man, extremely smart, and dedicated to the public good. But his errors have alas compounded our problem. And at some point, accountability must mean something."""--- Andrew Sullivan
Where do these a-holes think "more troops" were going to come from??? That the Secretary of Defense can wave a magic wand and make them appear???
It really is insulting that many of those complaining that we didn't use enough troops are the very same people that promoted the gutting of the military for eight years under Clinton.
Anyone know whether Andy served in the Military?
So if Rumsfield would have begun expanding the military within the few months prior to 911, the US would have about 180,000 troops in Iraq now ? How would having an extra 30 to 40 thousand troops in Iraq prevent terrorist attacks ? Heck we cannot even protect US citizens from terrorist attacks with the hundreds of thousands of military and police we have in this country right now. Any domestic terrorist can walk into a mall right now and blowup a few hundred people. The US election is over. The 'Iraq is a mistake' crowd lost the popular vote. Bush is trying to do something that is extremely difficult. Bring peace and democracy to Mesopatamia. If he can pull this off, the nobel peace prize would be beneath him.
There goes Andrew Sullivan again thinking with his d--- instead of his brain.
Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Jerry's brain plays chess with his penis.
Conservatives should stop looking to Sullivan... he is nothing resembling an American Conservative.
He is a Tory, and despises us.
Could someone give me a definition of "neoconservative"? People use that term and "neocon" all the time, but how does a neoconservative differ from a plain old conservative?
It generally refers to someone who is a fiscal and economic conservative while being generally moderate to liberal on most social issues. Most neocons also tend to be hawkish and have strong imperialist tendencies. They are also statists and constitutionally anti-constructionist. Their poster child is the current occupant of the White House.
...but how does a neoconservative differ from a plain old conservative?
Like all political and ideological labels, the term conservative seems to change over time. It is also pretty subjective. For instance, most Libertarians and Objectivists are considered raging conservatives by many on the left while many on the right label them as raging liberals. So the answer to your question would depend on how you define a conservative.
I think Rumsfield is proving to be much like Robt. S. McNamara in his taking the business model approach to the military. Unfortunately a war machine isn't a business it is a war machine that requires a tremedous amount of redundancy to meet its unforseen needs. The amounts of monies needed to support our military are staggering but pale in comparison to the damage that could be inflicted upon us by a successful military attack on the United States.
I don't think we need more personnal in Iraqi but I do believe we need a much larger military. In my opinion the only way to achieve the numbers we need is universal military service.
To take gound and hold it the only option is boots on the ground. Advanced technical weapons can do a great deal of damage but they can't root determined fighters out of the rubble. That job falls to the man and the rifle. Let's get our military back to at least eight hundred thousand active duty men and women.
It's the Congress folks - what holds the purse strings....
Iraq is more of a Guerrilla war now, more troops would most likely get in the way.....rotation is for Peace Time - this is War Time - seasoned troops are what we need, not green soldiers. WWII saw soldiers in the theater for as long as four years....Only Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry think four months is enough time to spend fighting a war...........
Sullivan voted for Kerry -- thus endangering all of us -- just so he could wear a wedding dress. His opinion doesn't count, period.
Yup, before things went bad the nneocons were dissing anyone that more troops would be needed. How they are trying to make Rumsfield the scape goat for their failed policy. SOP, with neocons.
It is a compound word, with the 'con' meaning conservative and the 'neo' meaning Jewish.
Probably the biggest diference between a paleocon and a neocon, is that a paleocon is an America First type conservative. If it is not in America interest then do not do it. What ever it is war, trade, agreements, etc. Neocons take a more globalist view, if it is in the worlds interest and US power can to it, lets do it even if it might not be in Americans interests.
I took the quiz and it decided I am a liberal. I read the descriptions of each of its categories and they are pure, unadulterated BS. It characterizes Ronald Reagan as a neocon. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I said originally, it's a very subjective measure and generalized labels are not likely to apply even in a majority of cases.
Sounds like a Flip Flop. I thought he he said he was going to vote for the President because Kerry couldn't keep it safe
Our troops were sent in to destroy Saddams military and capture his key operatives. That was extremely successful with our initial troop levels. More initial troops would have probably translated to more terrorist targets after achieving those primary goals. We are however getting close to the time for the slow withdrawal. Cannot be done however until a stable government is in place. I believe the troop level we have in Iraq now is the same troop level we initially sent onto the beaches of Normandy to free France from Germany. Now that initial WWII troop level turned out to be too low, but it was quickly increased. The Fascist Germans were much tougher foes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.