December 11, 2006

Experts To Bush: Don't Reduce Troops

I wonder if these folks -- actual experts in military and foreign affairs, including three retired four-star generals -- will get the same respect as the "realist" amateurs of the Iraq Surrender Group?

President Bush heard a blunt and dismal assessment of his handling of Iraq from a group of military experts yesterday, but the advisers shared the White House's skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, sources said.

The three retired generals and two academics disagreed in particular with the study group's plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and to reach out for help to Iran and Syria, according to sources familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was private.

Not only do they oppose the "cut-and-run" proposals of the ISG and the Democrat Party, some even suggest that an increase in troop levels might be needed.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not one believes in victory -- or whether one believes that America is past its prime and can no longer fight a war to victory.

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Gee wilikers more troops sounds like neeto fun.  I'm going to volunteer for the army tomorrow.  How about you?  Oh wait sounds like you have a cozy, comfortable priviledged life out there in dreamy Texas.  Why would you want to sacrifice anything when you can just jabber away. 

Posted by: Brendan at Tue Dec 12 00:25:36 2006 (N0d59)

2 No, believe it or not there are many other options and lines of thinking than this gem....."I guess it all comes down to whether or not one believes in victory -- or whether one believes that America is past its prime and can no longer fight a war to victory".

Thats the same pathetic reasoning that assumes the options are only STAYING THE COURSE or CUT AND RUN.
For your kind it hurts to think... it's this simplistic "us or them" "with us or against us" nonsense that got us to where we are today.



Posted by: Kool-Aid Regurge at Tue Dec 12 00:49:50 2006 (ObfZ9)

3 Brendan:

If you followed this blog, you would know that the author desperately wanted a career in the military, following in his father's footsteps, but was injured in a car accident after he signed his enlistment papers and so could not pass his physical.  The moral of the story -- don't be such an ass by making an implicit accusation of cowardice.

Kool-Aid:

It seems you have been drinking that stuff.  I guess your more enlightened approach requires that we accept that maybe America deserved to be attacked on 9/11 (and in 1993 at the WTC) and that maybe al-Qaeda was in the right.  I'm sure your kind were also around in 1941, saying that Roosevelt was espousing simplistic nonsense on December 8 when he sought a declaration of war.

Posted by: Jacob at Tue Dec 12 01:36:08 2006 (4nXaP)

4 Yeah -- and "with us or against us" was equally absurd during WWI, wasn't it?

After all, the Nazis and the Allies were morally equivalent, weren't they?

Sometimes evil simply needs to be faced head on, and every man/woman challenged to stand against the darkness. This country may well be imperfect, but it is a damn site better than what our enemies seek to impose.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 12 13:13:49 2006 (jTO/9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
7kb generated in CPU 0.0038, elapsed 0.0099 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0072 seconds, 33 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]