Quote:
Originally Posted by Freesail99
Sway, while I know that typing lots of words makes many half truths stick perhaps you should have read what I said in post # 3814 which is below. This is what started this current conversation.
Let me first say, I don't like Obama. But the fact that the surge did work, also says, we never had enough troops to do the job right, in the first place. Soldiers being forced to do a second and even a third tour of duty, backs me up on that. That also says a lot about our present leadership.
|
Which does nothing to explain your apparent fixation on the early events of the war while ignoring all signs of progress since. I'm sure that you are aware of those events but your writings do not reflect it. I'm sorry but there's far more to the story than, "Bush lied-men died" and an acknowledgment of the surge working being only a waty of pointing out insufficient troops originally.
Some posters here display an ignorance of military history, as if there have never been tremendous miscalculations by generals and political leaders alike. Military operations are frequently fraught with misjudgments and even incompetence. What has always been most remarkable about the US military is it's ability to adapt to changing circumstances and even changing missions. It was perfectly reasonable to expect to have a "light footprint" in Iraq as the war unfolded. When that proved to be inadequate to the task the policy was changed. Whether it should have been changed sooner or should have been foreseen is a debate for military historians.
What is inarguable is that the policy was changed and our success was a result of that change. And, like it or not, GW Bush's hands were all over not only the original policy but the impetus to change that policy. Contrast that with the defeatists of the Reid, Biden, and Pelosi models and GW Bush gets both the blame and the fame for winning this war.
It really matter little, for purposes of this discussion, whether you like Obama or not since you seemingly cannot get past the fact that we are winning in Iraq largely due to GW Bush's leadership and resolve, admittedly with past mistakes, and that GW Bush is not up for re-election and so will not be C-I-C on 21 January 2009. The relevant argument is really between the cut & runners and those who said, git 'er done.