I am sorry that I cannot cite, but about a month ago I had read that the postponement will cause more casualties in the longrun. I thought I had mentioned that in a post at the time.
This is not new; it’s just becoming more obvious.
Yes Zoe and Brainglutton, it will result in more casualties. By slowing down, you allow your enemy to resupply, tend to his own casualties, replace ammunition, restock food, scout for more defensible positions. Not only will it increase casualties, but doing the postponement now so as to not rock the election boat by risking a nasty battle and planning to pin the body count on the next president (if Kerry wins) is the height (or depths ) of political expediency or cowardice.
Jinx, the Army I was in and remember had a saying “We take care of our own”. The denials about Agent Orange and Gulf War syndrome first came from the poltical leaders, not the military. The military, like it or not, does and says what it is told to.
GI was a term made up by the enlisted during World War 2.
Vietnam should have taught us that it does not pay to play political games during a war. Take the hill, give it back. Threaten to crush the enemy, but don’t let the military actually do it. Talk about going after them, but don’t let anyone go after them if it means crossing some politically drawn line or attacking their real stronghold. Maintain a presence and be a target, but don’t fight. It’s all the same to me. My “philosophy” is Either come willing to fight and win, or don’t bother showing up at all.
Bush started the war, now he needs to simply get out of the way, or call it quits. Leave it to people who know what they are doing.
Because the deadline for the completion of the pacification of insurgent controlled areas cannot be slipped (Iraqi election date is already fixed) the amount of time available to get all of those areas under Iraqi government control is decreased by however long the delay in starting is. So our forces may end up being spread more thinly or having to attack more aggressively than may have otherwise been the case.
On the plus side, however, it may be that an extra month of inaction on the insurgency front may allow the level of frustration and possibly hatred the Iraqi populace in those areas has for the foreign volunteers aiding the insurgents to equal or eclipse the level of frustration and hatred of American/coalition/government forces, allowing for the possibility of a more peaceful settlement. Several news stories I have read allude to the discontent/disargreement between the insurgents and the foreign fighters, who are considered little better than terrorists. (On the flipside, they may learn to overlook their differences and work more effectively together)
This is a great strategy. Give the enemy time to regroup and resupply while at the same time allowing them to whittle away at our forces (not to mention the civilian population) with car bombs and boobytraps. :rolleyes:
Does the administration actually think that the insurgents are going to stop blowing up our convoys just because they want to get re-elected?
Hey, you insurgents over there…time out. We’ve got an election over here we’re trying to win. So if you could just, you know, stop blowing shit up for a few weeks we’d really appreciate it. We’ll be back to try and kill you again after we win the election. Thanks a bunch, Bushie and pals.
I would think that if one wanted so badly to get re-elected, one would do everything they could to get things as under control as possible over there BEFORE the election. Maybe it’s just me.
Fortunately, as Media Matters has noted, the ever-vigilant “liberal media” is out there on the front lines, giving this news the wide coverage it deserves. :rolleyes: