And nothing is more obvious, clear, or rational is that there have never been enough troops. Example:
When "they" want to enhance security in Baghdad, the capital, "they" put in more troops. "Why?", you might ask. If there are enough, why would "they" abandon some of the rest of the country to put more feet on the ground in the capital?
BECAUSE IT TAKES MORE! Don't you think it would take more troops to secure Anbar Province?
Now, when an occupation is as hated as the US occupation of Iraq, when the opposition enjoys support the way it does in Iraq, there really cannot be enough troops.
Goes for the rest of the country, too.
By the way, no government can be safe if the the capital cannot be secured.
Yer post belongs, once again, on the Fantasy Board.
Arf
Current Events » in reply to The "not enough troops" myth
Where you are correct is that there cannot be enough.
The whole thread (14 posts)
- Arrogance at the top bred tragedy in Iraq
- The "not enough troops" myth
- George Will - Cheney still doesn't get it on Iraq
- Meanwhile: 2,812