DIYbanter - View Single Post

Dave Bugg

wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:50:35 -0800, "Dave Bugg"
wrote:

And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless
there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge

The surge is effective in the small areas where we are doing it but I
don't think you are going to be able to draft a half million troops to
blanket the whole country.

1. The surge has been effective in all areas. And it has been effective
because of the turn of support by the Iraqi factions toward America.There is
no where for Al Queda to hide anymore. The Iraqi's have had enough of Al
Queda's violence and have decided that they can risk working with the
Americans whole-heartedly.

2. Don't confuse the Bush policy of sending only a small portion of our
total military with an inability to commit large scale forces if we wanted
to. We have them already. Part of the problem is the continues cycle of
rotation of the same small groups of divisions and battalions, which finds
our warriors having to serve numbers of tours. That's part of the failed
Bush/Dumbfield doctrine.

The violence would be in our streets then.

I don't think so. Violence has been promised since the war began. Ho hum.

If the Democrats try to nominate Hillary you might see 1968 style
demonstrations at their convention.

Good.

A draft isn't needed, only the decision to fight a war the way a war should
be fought. If we had commited to total war from the beginning, this battle
would have ended much sooner.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com