Aspiration

[Lanya]

After visiting Iraq, Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) comes out against a "surge":

    "We need a hard-nosed assessment of what we need, not what we wish," Wilson said. "Sometimes I think our national objectives in Iraq— including by our president— are described in pretty broad terms.

    "I want Iraqi people to live in a free and democratic society, but that's not our military mission there ... that's an aspiration, that's not a vital national interest for the United States."

and:

    “The most important thing right now is for the U.S. to be very clear to ourselves and the American people about our vital national interest in Iraq and this means a hard-nosed assessment. I don’t think we have that focus today. We need to modify our strategy and position.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011749.php

[BT]

Looks like the consensus is to run it through committee.

Let congress run the war.

[Plane]

Do hard nosed evaluators care nothing for asperation?

[BT]

The trouble with governing by committee is they set goals then do all in their power to set them up to fail.

Guess that way they can claim they were for the surge and it isn't their fault it didn't work.

So let's have a surge and then limit the time the added troops can be in country to 12 weeks.

Stupid people.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is always a limit in the number of troops and a limit in how long they stay. They cannot send an infinite number oif troops forever, for example. There is always a how many and a for how long. The only other choice is whether they announce it or not.

[BT]

There is always a how many and a for how long.

Right. I remember that drop dead date of June 5, 1944 for WWII.

I think that was how they defined the duration.

[domer]

Now your bizarre conception of the ACTUAL conflict in Iraq, BT, has veered into a comparison of the Allied attack on D-Day with the possibility of a surge in Iraq. You can't be serious. You talk about Lanya's emotion based arguments, but you do less well yourself: nothing more profound than "let's show them we're tougher than they are." The question that immediately arises is this: tougher than whom? Where is Bush's next mission to be directed, and, draining the swamp of all emotion, can it rationally be said that the US and the Iraqis (if there is an equivalence from our standpoint) will be better off from a structured withdrawal rather than a hellbent march to the "Berlin of the Middle East," Baghdad.

[BT]

The point of my post was simple.

If the battles are worth fighting, and i am convinced they are, your mileage may vary, then artificial time constraints are counter productive. Yet that is what i am seeing with all this talk about limited surges.

XO claimed never in history has an army gone to war without time restraints.WWII was an example of war where the duration was the time limit.

[Plane]

The point of my post was simple.

If the battles are worth fighting, and i am convinced they are, your mileage may vary, then artificial time constraints are counter productive. Yet that is what i am seeing with all this talk about limited surges.

XO claimed never in history has an army gone to war without time restraints.WWII was an example of war where the duration was the time limit.

During the last year of WWII the Democrats were heard to criticise the Republicans for wanting to "Shoot the last bellegerant Japaneese with the last bullet" there was a movement to reduce the effort once the enemy began to weaken.

I am glad that this wrongheaded idea was not followed , the war might have lasted a lot longer .

[Lanya]

Maybe I'm wrong, and if so please correct me. I thought that we were somewhat  bound by time requirements because our National Guard is bound by them.  They can only rotate out of the country every so many months (or every year? Can't find where it is listed).  And we're depending on them for infantry, as far as I can tell from what I read.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/wood061505.html

[BT]

National Guard rules can be changed by executive order.

Most of the artificial time constraints are being floated by opponents of the war.

[Plane]

"... has veered into a comparison of the Allied attack on D-Day with the possibility of a surge in Iraq. You can't be serious...."


In WWII we were really trying to win , what makes this time totally diffrent ?

[Xavier_Onassis]

XO claimed never in history has an army gone to war without time restraints.WWII was an example of war where the duration was the time limit.
====================================================================
The US had a definite limit of men it could send off to war, as well as a limit on the amount of weapons it could send to support them.

Fortunately, it was not necessary to exceed these limits to win.

However, In WWII we were fighting a couple of governments who could surrender.

In Iraq, the enemy is a series of different forces who cannot or will not surrender.