After I stated that the counterinsurgency tactics were more important than the number of troops, I was asked to come up with a reference stating that the numbers of troops meant nothing, which is not what I said.
If we had simply added the troops without the change in tactics--you do remember the old tactics, don't you?--the results would not have been this dramatic, if there had been any long-term results at all.
Bush changed the military leadership, and that leadership, despite the hatred and contempt of the Democrats for him, changed the methodology of the war. The "course of the war," not to put too fine a point on it. The results are becoming obvious.
The problem with most of these discussions has been that the person on the other side is still recycling year-old memes. I don't think I'm the one flailing here.
Current Events » in reply to That's what I thought, TB
I'm sorry, you thought I considered that a serious question.
The whole thread (25 posts)
- "Optimism grows in Iraq."
- So why are you complaining?
- You mean the silent army is re-grouping
- how's the Silent But Deadly army doing? (n/t)
- An old joke.
- You hope. (n/t)
- why stick with what's working?
- re: what's working
- And where do you get that information?
- re: what's working
- why stick with what's working?
