I'm not saying there was or is no dissent. I'm saying that Rumsfeld didn't set tactic then and isn't setting them now. I believe him when he says that if the generals want more troops they would get them, and that those in command aren't seeking more troops for reason Rumsfeld listed on Fox this morning.
The original scenario began with Van Riper thwarting the main U.S. invasion and sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf . . .
And did that happen?
and ended with the U.S. military forces getting mired in a long, drawn-out guerrilla war in the region.
What I'm hearing is that we are generally supported by the average Iraqi -- and the election backs this up -- and the guerillas are coming from outside the country. Do you disagree?
Van Riper resigned in disgust when he realized that the Pentagon wasn't trying to conduct an accurate assessment of the situation in the Gulf region
It sounds like he lost an argument, got mad and quit.
Where are they going to get them?
And did that happen?
It didn't happen because they gave Van Riper an important weapon in his arsenal that Saddam Hussein didn't have -- Chinese-made Silkworm missiles.
What I'm hearing is that we are generally supported by the average Iraqi -- and the election backs this up -- and the guerillas are coming from outside the country. Do you disagree?
I agree that foreigners comprise a significant portion of the enemy forces in Iraq, but it's becoming more clear by the day that the Ba'athist leadership in Iraq has planned a lot of this for a very long time.
It sounds like he lost an argument, got mad and quit.
Sort of what happened to Patton and MacArthur, right?