Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Maui Nick
It's believed that 75 percent of serving Army officers agree with what the retired generals have said.
|
So what is wrong with the other 25%? Are they ostriches? Too few troops is so obvious as to not even be debateable.
Principles upon which the Iraq invasion were predicated and justified were defined by Project for New American Century. A political agenda where unilateral miliary action should be applied liberally to fix the world. Iraq is a perfect example of that agenda. And yet even in Project for New... , it is a no brainer, slam-dunk, obvious. From Project for New American Century of 12 July 2005:
Quote:
Bring The Troops Home?
Secretary Rumsfeld has time and again said that he defers to his generals in Iraq about the number of troops needed. No one vaguely familiar with how decisions are made in this Pentagon believes that to be the case. And, indeed, as visiting members of Congress and military reporters have repeatedly reported from Iraq, the military officers there know quite well that more troops are needed, not less.
|
Why do 25% of the officers so deny reality? Even the 'strike first and ask questions later' Project for New... identified this problem long ago because it was that obvious. But not to Rumsfeld or to a president who could not even name the countries adjacent to Israel.
If your closest friends and allies were saying this a year ago, then why is it not true today? Denial. Blind denial. Clearly those field officers must be demented or unpatriotic. Good Morning Vietnam. 500,000 troops for one year is required.