Because the specifics from anyone on this board aren't worth a hill of beans. But it is better to ask and take the advice of the generals who forsaw this kind of mess in Iraq from the begininning, and take their advice. If I could remember correctly generals have thrown out numbers of between 300-500 thousand.
ahh good, the personal insults are starting to come. I guess that means you have nothing left to fall back on. Yes looking at the situation in Iraq now, Rumsfeld was no doubt wrong. Looking at what happened because of inability of so few troops to maintain security of even hold territory in Iraq he was wrong.
All you have said is that "my preferred generals said it, so it must be true." Not much of an argument there.
To paraphrase, I have said: There were other options available. We know what Rumsfeld chose didn't work. We know that some of the problems occurred because there weren't enough troops to guard hospitals, museums, prevent looting. We know that a number of career generals have stated they wanted more troops. They have stated that Rumsfeld wouldn't oblige. We know that outside of the green zone, U.S. troops are unable to take and hold securely large amounts of Iraqi territory. With what we know about what has happened, and is happening on the ground combined with what career military leaders have said, it is reasonable to believe having more troops would help a number of the problems listed above. To look at those and pretend like we can't know what would have happened, so it is wrong to say more troops would help would be the result of refusing to draw reasonable inferences, or an inability to draw reasonable inferences.
OK, you can call it a "tired canard," a flippancy that doesn't surprise me, but if you can flatly say, "the turks were never going to agree, due to their concerns about an independent Kurdistan, and nervousness about being seen to support the invasion of a "muslim" country," something that was not an unreasonable possibility at all, then answer me this... why were the troops committed to a northern front through Turkey, and unavailable for the invasion? If it was so clear to you, and not a surprise to me, what about it being clear as mud to Rumsfeld? So clear that he took the most advanced division we had out of the invasion, and the immediate aftermath of the invasion? That wasn't a mistake? It was cool for the 4th ID to spend it's time sailing in circles around the Eastern Med? When can you accept any error by the Bush Administration, and Rumsfeld? Never? Apparently, as far as you are concerned, Bush and Rumsfeld can make no mistakes. Thus, they never need to consider the lack of urgency to invade a sovereign nation, that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States, as reason enough to change their war plans based on very major components blowing up in their faces. I'll let you chew on this: Retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a commander in the Gulf War, agreed that another heavy division on the ground would be highly desirable. "The stability of the liberated areas is clearly an issue," he said. "The postwar transition has to begin immediately in the wake of the attacking forces, and they seem to be short of forces for those important missions at this time." Tuesday, March 25, 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21450-2003Mar24.html Keep D&D Civil.
Rummy's vision of the millitary is heading towards the CIA faced before 9/11. It's too tech specific while lacking a human presense. Who knows if the CIA can fix itself without stamping a barcode on every Citizen's head, let alone the military. Rumsfeld should resign. He's like a brat who trying to get the cool toys by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And you've missed the whole point of this debate. It isn't whether we on Clutchfans can come up with a number of units, since we're not the one's implementing the invasion and occupation. Its that Rumsfeld should listen to the one's who are.
The more i think about it, Batiste reminds me of McClellan. Little Mac was a superb organizer, and his troops loved him, mostly for continuing to prevaricate, always demanding more troops, more time, more...something. when batiste had the opportunity to actually lead his men, he bailed, on them and on us. personally, id rather have a Grant or Sherman. you may lose more men, but we'd win the war. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/21/franks.iraq.ap/index.html -- Franks defends war on terror, Rumsfeld MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Those who count the increasing number of American soldiers killed in Iraq are missing the bigger picture, retired Gen. Tommy Franks said Saturday night. "What we're talking about is neither 2,400, 24,000 or 240,000 lives," Franks said at the National Rifle Association's annual banquet. "Terrorism is a thing that threatens our way of life. It doesn't have anything to do with politics." More than 2,400 soldiers have died since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, the plan for which Franks developed and executed. He also oversaw combat in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. "I watched as America changed," Franks said. "That's not near done. We have to secure ourselves. We have to secure our Constitution." During his 30-minute speech, Franks took an occasional jab at the media and fellow generals for attacking Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "We haven't got any generals here. They're all in front of TV cameras complaining about Don Rumsfeld," Franks deadpanned. "Difference is, I know what I'm talking about." Franks staunchly defended his friend -- even as he called him "grumpy" and "grouchy." "I don't care about your politics. I don't. Don Rumsfeld is an American patriot." Franks retired in 2003 after a 36-year career in the Army, highlighted by becoming commander of Central Command in June 2000. He received warm ovations from the 3,000 NRA members in attendance. "It makes me think about going into politics," Franks said. "The great blessing is that thought doesn't last long."
That's an interesting comparison since McClellan also publicly criticized the civillian leadership . Although the point of the comparison are somewhat off since Batiste is arguing for more troops and that the lack of troops is prolonging the war.
