Majority of Americans Now Feel Iraq War Wrong

[Iriemon]

Much of what follows is paraphrased from Thomas Barnett's book, "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating", which is the follow on to his "The Pentagon's New Map". Barnett's two books are very popular, not only in the Pentagon but in military circles worldwide. If you want a look at what senior decision-makers are reading, then these are required reading.

...

There is much, much more at stake here than just Iraq.

It is disturbing to me if this is the prevailing policy analysis in the decision makers these days. To me, it helps explain why Iraq has been such a fiasco.

If, as these clips indicate, the invasion of Iraq was purported to be part of a war against Islamic fundamentalism, which is the acknowledged source of the radicalism that produces terrorists, Iraq makes even less sense as a target. Hussein was not an radical Islamic fundamentalist. Radical Islamic fundamentalists do not have a "Crusader" as their foreign minister. Hussein was much more secular than the regimes in (for example) Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq should have been the last target if Islamic fundamentalism is the goal. If eradicating Islamic fundamentalism is the goal, the invasion of Iraq, IMO, was a huge folly. We took down a relatively secular leader, destabilized the region with a very possible result being a radical Islamic fundamentalist will end up in power in Iraq, and we have given justification to the radical Islamic fundamentalists with their anti-Crusader/American message throughout the Islamic world.

The author also contends that attacking "transnational terrorism" will result in increased frequency of counter attack: "So, it should have been no surprise that when the US took up the challenge of a global war on terrorism that terrorism would go up in frequency. To expect anything else is simply not logical."

To me, this smacks of after the fact justification for what is going on in Iraq. But let's take the author at his word -- to expect anything else is not logical.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld 2/7/03.

Point taken.

I have already commented on the author's bandwagon theory.

In sum, it seems to me what the author is proposing behind the veil of ambiguous phrases in his war against transnational terrorism, in which victory is defined as the "elimination of all secure havens", is a pan-Islamic war in which the US occupiers in an imperialistic manner much of the ME. The two biggest terrorist sponsoring states are Saudi Arabia and Iran. Throw in the Syria and Palestine, and it's quite a party being contemplated.

IMO, escalating war against the Islamic world will not decrease the threat of radicalism and anti-American hatred. Our war in Iraq is not achieving this. We aren't going to win what is a war of ideas by killing peoples' brothers and sisters, mothers and dads, sons and daughters.

Sometimes you have to fight. But when you do not, I believe violence begets violence.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Much of what follows is paraphrased from Thomas Barnett's book, "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating", which is the follow on to his "The Pentagon's New Map".
There is much, much more at stake here than just Iraq.

While I agree with the level of significance that the invasion of Iraq has assumed to the GWoT, until the invasion occurred, Iraq was tertiary to the GWoT.

Iraq didn't get enough attention because the CIA was busy combating terrorism and WMD proliferation.

From the recently publicly released Kerr Report p5

Intelligence and analysis on Iraq:​

Issues for the Intelligence Community

29, July 2004​

... Iraq was not the only significant intelligence problem facing the Community in the years immediately preceding the war. Counter terrorism and counter proliferation were given higher priority ...
​

Iraq was not involved w/ al-Qaida in any meaningful way (operational or collaborative relationship). Iraq was seen as unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy in the "forseeable future."

Since it was not involved w/ the group that was attacking us, and it was unlikely to attack us, attacking Iraq was detrimental detour from the GWoT. Further, it has hurt our ability to prosecute the GWoT and has aided the enemy w/ their recruitment and training efforts.

 

[TimmyBoy]

While I agree with the level of significance that the invasion of Iraq has assumed to the GWoT, until the invasion occurred, Iraq was tertiary to the GWoT.

Iraq didn't get enough attention because the CIA was busy combating terrorism and WMD proliferation.

From the recently publicly released Kerr Report p5

Intelligence and analysis on Iraq:​

Issues for the Intelligence Community

29, July 2004​

... Iraq was not the only significant intelligence problem facing the Community in the years immediately preceding the war. Counter terrorism and counter proliferation were given higher priority ...
​

Iraq was not involved w/ al-Qaida in any meaningful way (operational or collaborative relationship). Iraq was seen as unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy in the "forseeable future."

Since it was involved w/ the group that was attacking us, and it was unlikely to attack us, attacking Iraq was detrimental detour from the GWoT. Further, it has hurt our ability to prosecute the GWoT and has aided the enemy w/ their recruitment and training efforts.

​

Yup, which goes to show the people in the government do not care for the people they are suppose to serve. They are certainly a bad example to follow.

 

[MSgt]

Was it wrong to sidetrack the War on Terror and turn Iraq into a training ground for al-Qaida?

The real question is,

"Was the way that we did it in the best interests of the US?"
​

Obtuse.

Nothing has been sidetracked. Arresting the rogues of Islam and calling it a day would accomplish nothing. The cause of Islamic terrorism is oppression and the desperation of men to withdraw deeper into their religion for answers. Those answers are blame and often take them down the road of violence. To attack terrorism, we must deal with the oppression of the Middle East. Saddam, Bin Ladden, Al-Queda and other terror organizations for the last thirty years, Mohammad Khatami, Khudafi, etc...are mere symptoms of a decaying civilization. Leaving Saddam alone as he practices the very thing that has caused this problem throughout the region would not have been constructive to this war. He was a figure head to all of these zealots on how to defy America and the highly useless "UN" and get away with it. With him still in charge in Iraq, anything we did in the Middle East would have been fruitless. A minor successful democratic Iraq may prove to be a blue print for a stronger democracy for the population of Iran, since 70 percent of Iran is made up of disenchanted youth and are alienated from the Mullahs that lead them.

Iraq is imprtant to this GWoT.

 

[MSgt]

Much of what follows is paraphrased from Thomas Barnett's book, "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating", which is the follow on to his "The Pentagon's New Map". Barnett's two books are very popular, not only in the Pentagon but in military circles worldwide. If you want a look at what senior decision-makers are reading, then these are required reading.

With apologies for the length of the post, here goes...

Iraq is a war within the global war on terrorism. What radical Islamic fundamentalists such as OBL seek is not merely a ‘disconnect’ from globalization’s creeping embrace of the Middle East's more traditional societies, but a reconnect to an idealized past they believe offers a better alternative-an Islamic definition of globalization that contrasts itself with the Western one. Barnett quotes terrorism expert Marc Sageman:

"The global Salafi jihad is a worldwide religious revivalist movement with the goal of reestablishing past Muslim glory in a great Islamist state stretching from Morocco to the Phillipines, eliminating present national boundaries. It preaches salafiyyah (from salaf, the Arabic word for “ancient one,” referring to the Prophet Mohammed), the restoration of authentic Islam, and advocates a strategy of violent jihad, resulting in an explosion of terror to wipe out what it regards as local political heresy. The global version of this movement advocates the defeat of the Western powers that prevent the establishment of a true Islamist state. Al-Qaeda is the vanguard of this movement, which includes many other terrorist groups that collaborate in their operations and share a large support base."

Ultimately, what OBL and the movement offer is civilizational apartheid.

To attack transnational terrorism and other forms of mass violence is naturally to increase their overall frequency in the short run. Sound counterintuitive? Not really. If you want to disarm the bad guys, you're asking them to give up that which makes them powerful, or what they believe gets them to their future caliphate.

So, it should have been no surprise that when the US took up the challenge of a global war on terrorism that terrorism would go up in frequency. To expect anything else is simply not logical.

In many ways, our efforts to shrink the Arab-Muslim terrorists world involve us in a number of implied races with the terrorist networks that plague so many societies there. We seek to create a bandwagon effect across the global economy, enlisting the support of our logical allies in this struggle. Conversely, our enemies seek to create bystanders by targeting our weakest links, or those industrialized states most vulnerable to their terrorist acts. We target rogue regimes that support transnational terrorism, while they target pre-globalized states (typically failed regimes) for sanctuary, thus triggering our interventions and subsequent nation-building efforts. We push toward a victory defined as eliminating all their secure havens, while the terrorists fight essentially a defensive war designed to motivate our retreat from their world and the establishment of civilizational apartheid. Our sense of progress comes in isolating and disabling their network nodes, and theirs come in expanding the reach of their operations and the robustness of the their networks.

They wage a calculated war of attrition designed to wear us down and sap our sense of purpose and moral cause. Because our enemy's success need not require their discrediting of globalization as a historical process, just the US. Because once the world's sole military superpower is convinced to abandon its military efforts to defeat the forces of terrorism, then the rest of the world's major powers will simply conlcude their separate peace arrangements as required with the various dictators who will continue to flourish in the Arab-Muslim terrorist world. The EU, China, India, and Japan will have no choice but to bargain for their continued access to key resources - especially energy. Over time, more of the terrorist-targeted Arab-Muslim world would succumb to instability and mass violence absent America's military presence, forcing great powers to increase their own military spending to secure-in a zero sum fashion-their desired level of connectivity and access to key sources of raw materials.

Thus, if the US fails in its current attempts to enlist the support of other great powers in a shrink the transnational terrorist Arab-Muslim strategy, we'll probably see those states try to carve out their own 'spheres of influence' there in much the same way that the US and the Soviet Union competed for allies in the Third World during the Cold War.

There is much, much more at stake here than just Iraq.

Damn. I swear, I'm almost looking at my own words here.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Just a question about facts here.

The majority of this country voted for Bush. A large majority.

Just a question about facts here.
What sense of the phrase "large majority" applies to a 51% majority?
Since it was only a majority by a mere 1%, wouldn't "slim majority" be more accurate than "large majority"? Objectively speaking, of course.

If "slim majority" is not more accurate to describe a 51% majority than the phrase "large majority," then what size of a majority would be accurately described as a "slim majority?"
​

 

[Iriemon]

Obtuse.

Nothing has been sidetracked. Arresting the rogues of Islam and calling it a day would accomplish nothing. The cause of Islamic terrorism is oppression and the desperation of men to withdraw deeper into their religion for answers. Those answers are blame and often take them down the road of violence. To attack terrorism, we must deal with the oppression of the Middle East. Saddam, Bin Ladden, Al-Queda and other terror organizations for the last thirty years, Mohammad Khatami, Khudafi, etc...are mere symptoms of a decaying civilization. Leaving Saddam alone as he practices the very thing that has caused this problem throughout the region would not have been constructive to this war. He was a figure head to all of these zealots on how to defy America and the highly useless "UN" and get away with it. With him still in charge in Iraq, anything we did in the Middle East would have been fruitless. A minor successful democratic Iraq may prove to be a blue print for a stronger democracy for the population of Iran, since 70 percent of Iran is made up of disenchanted youth and are alienated from the Mullahs that lead them.

Iraq is imprtant to this GWoT.

So we had a decaying civilization, falling apart under its own weight, and we invade a country based on pretext, thereby giving credibility to all those who rail against the crusaders and the great satan. Great strategy.

 

[Gibberish]

Re: Just a question about facts here.

The majority of this country voted for Bush. A large majority.

Clinton 1992: Won by nearly 6 million votes and 5.5 points. Won the EC 69-31.

Clinton 1996: Won by more than 8 million votes and 8.5 points. Won the EC 70-30.

Bush 2000: LOST the popular vote. Won the EC (with SCOTUS assistance) 50-49.

Bush 2004: Won by 3 million votes and 2.5 points. Won the EC 53-47.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

When your in charge of a country, and you get information that million's upon million's of lives are at stake, you don't sit there and say "well, the information is sketchy" you don't wait to see what happens when your talking about terrorist attacks.

Are trying to imply that Team Bush received such information, information "that million's upon million's of lives are at stake?"

And for the record, the majority of the people in this country don't think the information is sketchy.

Are you sure that you used the correct verb tense here? Are you sure you didn't mean to say "didn't think" instead of "don't think?"

"Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate or misleading?"
​

Accurate 39% Misleading 59%
​

"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Yes, Misled 51% No, Did Not 47%
​

There're some folks who would go so far as to call these a "large majority" of folks who think that the intel was at least "sketchy."

 

[MSgt]

So we had a decaying civilization, falling apart under its own weight, and we invade a country based on pretext, thereby giving credibility to all those who rail against the crusaders and the great satan. Great strategy.

Well, that's your twisted interpretation.

My interpretation is more grounded to historical facts and proof. You think they "needed" Iraq to hate and murder us infidels? I guess every Islamic terror attack and Islamic terrorist organization over the last thirty years was based on our future war in Iraq...right? Appeasement is for cowards. France is full of them. Maybe if Sudan kisses their ass....oh, too late. Perhaps if India and Indonesia kisses their ass...of, too late. Even China is worried about separatist sentiment in its vast and mostly Muslim western province of Xinjiang. Maybe China should kiss their ass and hope that will stay the violence.

 

[MSgt]

Are you sure that you used the correct verb tense here? Are you sure you didn't mean to say "didn't think" instead of "don't think?"

"Do you believe that what we were told by the government before the Iraq war about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, was generally accurate or misleading?"
​

Accurate 39% Misleading 59%
​

"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"

Yes, Misled 51% No, Did Not 47%
​

There're some folks who would go so far as to call these a "large majority" of folks who think that the intel was at least "sketchy."

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Vietnam was noble. Then they got bored and started spitting on them.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Somalia was noble. Then some got ambushed by Al-Queda and Americans started protesting that their sons are in harms way.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Bosnia was noble. Then they got bored and protested that their sons were in harms way.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Iraq was a great idea, then they got bored and started portraying us as "helpless victims" of American imperialism. Then they "believed" that helping Iraqis was noble and in the end will contribute to our security. I guess, as always, results aren't immediate and they are bored with messing with our lives.

Recent history has shown the world what America's resolve is relly about anymore and how weak it is. Are you actually excited and surprised with Americans and what they "believe" from day to day? I wonder when the next war will be. I'm sure we can all look forward to the excitement of Americans to place us in harm's way and then change their minds on what they "believe." :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

Well, that's your twisted interpretation.

My interpretation is more grounded to historical facts and proof. You think they "needed" Iraq to hate and murder us infidels?

Nope. It just gives them a evidence to support their anti-American agenda. Just what bin Laden wanted. We have foolishly played right into his hands.

I guess every Islamic terror attack and Islamic terrorist organization over the last thirty years was based on our future war in Iraq...right? Appeasement is for cowards. France is full of them. Maybe if Sudan kisses their ass....oh, too late. Perhaps if India and Indonesia kisses their ass...of, too late. Even China is worried about separatist sentiment in its vast and mostly Muslim western province of Xinjiang. Maybe China should kiss their ass and hope that will stay the violence.

LOL ... what are you arguing, the French should have maintained its colonial empire? At what does India have to do with it? That was a British colony. Is that the objective of the US invasion of Iraq, build an empire like in the good old day?

Hail ceasar.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Vietnam was noble.
I'm sure we can all look forward to the excitement of Americans to place us in harm's way and then change their minds on what they "believe."

Re this war, in part the change of heart has come about as the story pitched by Team Bush has unravelled. Originally, this affair was supposed to be a cakewalk that practically paid for itself. It was originally seen as a necessity to prevent a mushroom cloud over a major American city. They were saying that we'd be down to less than 50,000 troops in Iraq by Fall '03.
Little by little, part by part these things have shown themselves to be undeniably wrong.

People were "excited" to invade Iraq given the scenario that they were presented with. However, as the truth trickles out, with it comes disillusionment, disatisfaction and resentment.
If there had been collaborative/operational ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, if it could still be reasonable believed that we removed a significant threat to the US by taking out Hussein, if the post-war period had gone as Team Bush had projected, if corruption and unbudgeted security expenses weren't siphoning the funding for the reconstruction, if we weren't setting up an Iraq dominated by folks who're a little more Islamist than most Americans are comfortable with, and if, after two years, Baghdad had 24hr electricty and reliable sewage etc, perhaps Americans would still be "excited" about our decisions to socially engineer Iraq and the ME in general.

I believe that if we were fighting a war whose justifications were clear and whose importance was obvious, then Americans would have a much, much greater tolerance for the costs in both blood and money. As it is, it's not clear that what we're getting is worth the costs in lives and treasure. There're even some indications that we've made things worse for ourselves by invading Iraq. Given these things, and the deceptive sales pitch for the war, it's hard to maintain "excitement."

 

[Iriemon]

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Vietnam was noble. Then they got bored and started spitting on them.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Somalia was noble. Then some got ambushed by Al-Queda and Americans started protesting that their sons are in harms way.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Bosnia was noble. Then they got bored and protested that their sons were in harms way.

Americans "believed" that placing their sons in harms way in Iraq was a great idea, then they got bored and started portraying us as "helpless victims" of American imperialism. Then they "believed" that helping Iraqis was noble and in the end will contribute to our security. I guess, as always, results aren't immediate and they are bored with messing with our lives.

Recent history has shown the world what America's resolve is relly about anymore and how weak it is. Are you actually excited and surprised with Americans and what they "believe" from day to day? I wonder when the next war will be. I'm sure we can all look forward to the excitement of Americans to place us in harm's way and then change their minds on what they "believe." :roll:

You are exactly right. Americans will not put up with a long term, BS war. Should have figured that our from Vietnam, right? Haven't our current leaders figured this out? Hello? Were our leaders even paying attention to what was going on in Vietnam? Didn't they learn anything? Maybe they were out chasing fillies and tooling around in jets in the Champagne Unit during that time.

 

[MSgt]

Nope. It just gives them a evidence to support their anti-American agenda. Just what bin Laden wanted. We have foolishly played right into his hands.

Evidence? I'd call it excuses. At the heart of it, they need nothing but to recognize that we are different. Anything else is merely used to legitimize what they do to the people that would rather appease then fight. (Not an attempt to define you.....just the global left.)

LOL ... what are you arguing, the French should have maintained its colonial empire? At what does India have to do with it? That was a British colony. Is that the objective of the US invasion of Iraq, build an empire like in the good old day?

Hail ceasar.

All of those other places I mentioned are locations where this blasphemous form of Islam has spread from the Middle East. They are killing in the name of God in those places too. I said nothing about colonialization. Pull out a map and look at the Middle East. Now look at those other countries I mentioned...read up on the violence there, so that you don't think I'm "blowing smoke" and see for your self how Islamic extremism is spreading its violence. Go north too - Bosnia and Kosovo. Even Russia (Checnya) has problems.

 

[Iriemon]

Evidence? I'd call it excuses. At the heart of it, they need nothing but to recognize that we are different. Anything else is merely used to legitimize what they do to the people that would rather appease then fight. (Not an attempt to define you.....just the global left.)

Well, that is your twisted interpretation. So I guess we both have our twisted interpretations on the record.

All of those other places I mentioned are locations where this blasphemous form of Islam has spread from the Middle East. They are killing in the name of God in those places too. I said nothing about colonialization. Pull out a map and look at the Middle East. Now look at those other countries I mentioned...read up on the violence there, so that you don't think I'm "blowing smoke" and see for your self how Islamic extremism is spreading its violence. Go north too - Bosnia and Kosovo. Even Russia (Checnya) has problems.

Isn't India at least mostly a Hindu nation? Don't you mean Pakistan?

 

[MSgt]

You are exactly right. Americans will not put up with a long term, BS war. Should have figured that our from Vietnam, right? Haven't our current leaders figured this out? Hello? Were our leaders even paying attention to what was going on in Vietnam? Didn't they learn anything? Maybe they were out chasing fillies and tooling around in jets in the Champagne Unit during that time.

Actually..they learned one thing - Not to let the politics of Washington interefer with the troops on the ground. I am only aware of one case where this happened in Iraq and that is why we went back to Fallujah a second time. The propagandous Al-Jazeera played a tune that the Iraqi diplomats sucked in and pressured our government and they made us leave just as we cornered the insurgency. I was surprised and dissapointed in my CinC for that one. The second trip was very hard and since they were able to prepare this time, they were dug in and Fallujah was known as the terrorist capital of the world. This caused more civilian deaths and American deaths.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Actually..they learned one thing - Not to let the politics of Washington interefer with the troops on the ground. I am only aware of one case where this happened in Iraq and that is why we went back to Fallujah a second time.

There's also Team Bush's refusal to take out Zarqawi any of the times that they had the chance before the invasion even started. There's also the dismissal of the Iraqi army. These were both ill-advised, politically motivated decisions that have come back to create much grief for the US Armed Forces.

 

[MSgt]

Isn't India at least mostly a Hindu nation? Don't you mean Pakistan?

Nope. I mean India. And yes, India is largely Hindu. The Muslim extremists in India have been killing Hindus and have assassinated a few Hindu priests for about a year and a half now. They aren't doing it for any other reason other than that they are different and the extremists are subscribing to the Middle Eastern Arab's version of Islam. This is why I brought up those other places. There are many many more. For these place, Islamic extremists can't use Israel or American foreign policy as an "excuse."

 

[MSgt]

There's also Team Bush's refusal to take out Zarqawi any of the times that they had the chance before the invasion even started. There's also the dismissal of the Iraqi army. These were both ill-advised, politically motivated decisions that have come back to create much grief for the US Armed Forces.

Sure. I'm not going to argue those things. This is why I didn't reply earlier. They have made mistakes. One of those being the complete surprise of the insurgency, but fighting a war is never perfect and every mistake is plastered on TV. BUT let's not stop with "team Bush." "Team Clinton", instead of making the mistakes of boldness made the mistakes of appeasement. "Team Clinton" also made the mistakes of neglect to our military which made "Team Bush" spend a plethora of funds to properly equip us. Even he understood that fighting a war thirty years after Vietnam demanded better equipment.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a must. They were corrupt and abusive and had to be started from the ground. I have to defend that. There's no way that the existing Iraqi Army that abused their villigaes and towns would have been able to continue to exist in those towns and villages after Saddam. A fresh start was in order.

Try not to be partisan. The military has largely been ignored by this country for a couple decades. We were screaming "Bin Laden" and Middle Eastern oppression for that long as our numbers were being cut and our funding was slashed and as our military was subjected to Al-Queda attacks all over the place. By the way...are you aware that our Navy and our Air Force continues to be cut in numbers today?

 

[Iriemon]

Nope. I mean India. And yes, India is largely Hindu. The Muslim extremists in India have been killing Hindus and have assassinated a few Hindu priests for about a year and a half now. They aren't doing it for any other reason other than that they are different and the extremists are subscribing to the Middle Eastern Arab's version of Islam. This is why I brought up those other places. There are many many more. For these place, Islamic extremists can't use Israel or American foreign policy as an "excuse."

I don't think the conflict between the Hindus and Muslems on the subcontinent is a recent development.

 

[Iriemon]

Try not to be partisan. The military has largely been ignored by this country for a couple decades. We were screaming "Bin Laden" and Middle Eastern oppression for that long as our numbers were being cut and our funding was slashed and as our military was subjected to Al-Queda attacks all over the place. By the way...are you aware that our Navy and our Air Force continues to be cut in numbers today?

Defense spending has increased by 60%; almost $200 billion per year more is spent now than in 2000. So if they are still having to cut the numbers it is because all this extra money is being larded out to pork fattened defense contractors instead of supporting the troops.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

One of those being the complete surprise of the insurgency, but fighting a war is never perfect and every mistake is plastered on TV.

The "complete surprise of the insurgency?" It wasn't a surprise. The US Intel Community predicted it. Team Bush just happened to ignore these sorts of predictions in their planning.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a must. They were corrupt and abusive and had to be started from the ground. I have to defend that. There's no way that the existing Iraqi Army that abused their villigaes and towns would have been able to continue to exist in those towns and villages after Saddam. A fresh start was in order.

Again this is a matter of how rather than what. While no one said it didn't need purging, the US Intel Community point to the disbanding as a blunder.

The military has largely been ignored by this country for a couple decades. We were screaming "Bin Laden" and Middle Eastern oppression for that long as our numbers were being cut and our funding was slashed and as our military was subjected to Al-Queda attacks all over the place.

Good on you.

By the way...are you aware that our Navy and our Air Force continues to be cut in numbers today?

Rumsfeld's "tranformation" process?

 

[MSgt]

Defense spending has increased by 60%; almost $200 billion per year more is spent now than in 2000. So if they are still having to cut the numbers it is because all this extra money is being larded out to pork fattened defense contractors instead of supporting the troops.

Just because the money is coming, which has allowed us to make leaps and bounds with our gear, doesn't mean we have the force we used to.

 

[MSgt]

I don't think the conflict between the Hindus and Muslems on the subcontinent is a recent development.

It isn't, but like everywhere else, it is excilading.