War is a nasty business. You fight to win and use the weapons that are effective in Killing the enemy before they Kill you. As a former artillery officer, WP is BAD stuff but effective aginst some targets. The most important issue is, Should a country go to war? If the answer is Yes, then you fight to win and keep your cauualties as low as possible. You do that with superior force in numbers,tactics and firepower. |
I think this is the second position Gene has taken that I can agree with completely, at least on its face. However, Iraq isn't like previous wars, especially WWII where a (somewhat) reliable estimate of enemy strength & numbers could be made.
I believe the administration and the top military brass had the invasion force needs figured out quite well but both underestimated the number of troops needed to maintain the peace, or at least a peace acceptable to administration critics and the press, though I remain unconvinced it was "knowable" before Saddam was toppled.
On the other hand, what the press & the administration's critics would consider an "acceptable" peace is unclear (to be kind), and I have no doubt that, had twice the number of troops gone in & stayed, and we had no insurgency for all intents and purposes, the press and Bush critics would be yammering on about Yanqui Imperialism & the "oppressive occupation" of Iraq, not to mention the waste of money in sustaining such a large military presence there, keeping so many soldiers & guardsmen away from home, yada, yada.
The press are truly blinded by their antagonism over the liberals' loss of political power, something that just frustrates the hell out of them.
Cheers,
Daiwa