smart money board game
Boston.com / News / Washington / U.S. force in Iraq to grow by January to highest level of war — Viet Nam Anyone?
The expansion of the U.S. force also recalls assertions made by some Bush administration officials when the invasion was launched that although stabilizing the country would not be easy or cheap, it certainly would not require more U.S. troops than it took to topple Baghdad.
As it turns out, the post-invasion period has been far costlier in blood and treasure than almost anyone predicted. When President Bush declared major combat operations were over May 1, 2003, the United States had about 148,000 troops in Iraq slightly more than when the war began two months earlier and more than were there when Baghdad fell in early April.
What a shock. Lord knows we never saw that one coming. (Extreme sarcasm noted.)
And less than a month after the election! Lucky for Dubya he was able to delay the inevitable until now. 🙂
I seem to remember Kerry stating that he was going to increase the US force in Iraq by 40000. So which is it: 12000 troops is too small or not enough?
As a former Air Force officer and having a MA in military history, this is the cheapest war we’ve ever had bar none as a measure of the ultimate historical impact and influence on world change.
The human element and cost is always distressing regardless of numbers. I’m in Kuwait supporting the Army and from here it looks like we are in the midst of something that will ultimately have at least as much, if not more impact on how the world evolves as WWII. And at a extremely low cost. The fight in Iraq for true representative and inclusive government will be seeen as a pivotal point in the history of the Middle East (if we can pull it off).
Back home people barely are aware of the war. Does anyone younger than 60 have an idea what rationing during the World Wars was like? We’ve gotten accustomed to doing war on the cheap, both in money and in people.
It would be better to have way more than enough troops and then be able to look back and say we didn’t need so many, than to fail (as we ultimately did only from a lack of will in Vietnam) because we didn’t have enough.
Back home people barely are aware of the war.
A few reasons come to mind.
1. The emphasis, after 9/11, on maintaining normalcy – so the terroists wouldn’t “win”.
2. The protests against the Vietnam war were bolstered by the draft’s forcing of people to fight in a war that they, or their families, didn’t believe in. This war is being fought by volunteers – and so there is almost no protest by military members, or their families. (with the notable exception of people who have had their tours extended).
3. With the two fronts in the war on terror – and that being credited (at least in part) with preventing any attacks on US soil in the last 3 years – we are becoming accustomed to a continuous, low-level war being “the norm”.
We didn’t finish in Afganistan before launching into Iraq. We appear to be ready to launch into Iran (or Korea?) before finishing in Iraq or Afganistan. A Faluga campaign, or an Abu Gharib scandal may catch the public’s (sadly) short attention span – but cannot keep it. 🙁
Rob, it would be better not to throw away American lives in unnecessary wars.(as time has shown was the case in Vietnam)
So, we don’t care about the 2 million Cambodians that were slaughtered after we pulled out of Vietnam?