Are we undercommitting to Iraq
There are too many links for me to post right now, particularly as I want to finish my next section of my novella by 4:30. Just read a bunch of posts on Atrios, who among other things coined the term "war porn" for the current coverage, which I'm particularly fond of.
But here's the problem. We don't have enough forces, our supply lines are thin, and the Iraqis are hitting the supply lines, and reserves are at least 3 weeks from landing. Without enough troops, we began our rush into Baghdad, and that may leave the frontline stranded and in serious danger.
Frankly Rummy and Bush rushed into it, they didn't want to alert the public to the fact that there was a chance that this would be a messy war. But it's already messy. The Turks have invaded the north, and the Arab League has openly condemned us. Both of these facts were inevitable, but the worst thing Bush did for the war effort was undercommit troops for domestic political reasons. Which, by the way, is exactly what Johnson did in 1965 when he didn't want to mobilize the reserve for war in Vietnam so that he wouldn't alert the public to the fact that we were entering a major military operation.
And like in Vietnam, that could prove to be the American downfall.
Maybe we need another defeat like in Vietnam to take us down a few notches. To remind us, for all our military might, we can't do anything we wish in the world. I just hate the fact that for that to happen many American servicemen and women as well as Iraqi soldiers and civilians must pay the ultimate price. And the danger in predicting quick victory is that as things slow down, you're at a disadvantage. Remember, back in 1861, the Civil War was supposed to last at most 6 months with less than a thousand total casualties.
There are too many links for me to post right now, particularly as I want to finish my next section of my novella by 4:30. Just read a bunch of posts on Atrios, who among other things coined the term "war porn" for the current coverage, which I'm particularly fond of.
But here's the problem. We don't have enough forces, our supply lines are thin, and the Iraqis are hitting the supply lines, and reserves are at least 3 weeks from landing. Without enough troops, we began our rush into Baghdad, and that may leave the frontline stranded and in serious danger.
Frankly Rummy and Bush rushed into it, they didn't want to alert the public to the fact that there was a chance that this would be a messy war. But it's already messy. The Turks have invaded the north, and the Arab League has openly condemned us. Both of these facts were inevitable, but the worst thing Bush did for the war effort was undercommit troops for domestic political reasons. Which, by the way, is exactly what Johnson did in 1965 when he didn't want to mobilize the reserve for war in Vietnam so that he wouldn't alert the public to the fact that we were entering a major military operation.
And like in Vietnam, that could prove to be the American downfall.
Maybe we need another defeat like in Vietnam to take us down a few notches. To remind us, for all our military might, we can't do anything we wish in the world. I just hate the fact that for that to happen many American servicemen and women as well as Iraqi soldiers and civilians must pay the ultimate price. And the danger in predicting quick victory is that as things slow down, you're at a disadvantage. Remember, back in 1861, the Civil War was supposed to last at most 6 months with less than a thousand total casualties.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home