GregoryMK
Posts: 20
Joined: 12/1/2005 Status: offline
|
I find mr Card's "essay" and I use the term loosely laughable. The errors in Iraq ARE the result of poor decisoins by him and his adminsitration. they went in with 130,000 troops because Don Rumsfeld, a man who "had betteirnthings to do: than fight in Viet Nam, said that would be enough over the objections of the Generals who estimated 350,000 would be necessary. the Rand Institute estimates that the job woudl take 500,000 personel in Iraq. to put that in perspective, 500,000 servicemen and servicewomen is the ENTIRE deployale force of the US military, every last one of them, for the duration. We had no plan for an extended occupation because Chenney and Rumsfeld beleived we would be welcomed as liberators. That didn't exactly turn out as planned did it? It was the adminstration's decision to disband the Iraqi army and police with nothing to put in it;s palce that precipitated the descent into chaos. hte throey that Iraq could fund it's own reconstruction was advanced by another adminstration stall wart, one who had no knowledge of the state of hte oil industry in Iraq. I coudl go on, but I think that any one who has followed this can see the blatant falsehoods in Mr Card's propaganda piece. The mess we are in is a direct result of the failures of this administration. On the question of what to do, we need to take a hard look at reality. We need 500,000 pairs of boots on the ground to pacify the country. Can we afford it? Can we afford not to? As one poster suggested there needs to be a come to Jesus meeting between the topbrass and the congressional oversight committees. At that point they brass need to make it clear what they need to win, and that the need the military and political idiots in the west wing to get the hell out of military decision making, and actaully put thier mone where thier mouth is, and support the men and women in uniform instead of using at as cover speak for "don't question the authority of the president" Then we need to have a nice big national debate on what the ramifications of fighting through to victory and the costs and benefits, vs the the consequeces of leaving. Yes we need a tax increase to pay for this war, a hefty one. We need a draft to get the necessary number of people in uniform to win, because frankly the volunteeer army is not got the numbers we need. We need a full mobilization of the reserves and National Guard. No it's not a pelasant alternative is it? It's going to mean sacrificing our standard of living, and alot of our creature comforts. It's going to mean maintaining a strong military presence in Iraq for half a century at sustantial cost. It probably means supporting a dictator ther efor for several decades. Ar those things we want to do? that we as a nation are willing to pay for? Win or loose, Bush will probably go down as one of the worst presidents in the nation's history, but his legacy is not what the men an women in our uniformed services are dying for, and wil continue to die for until we either leave, or win in a dozen or so years. It's up to us if we want to fight that long, and pay for it for the next century or so.
|