[lit-ideas] Re: The beginning of the end in Iraq

  • From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:21:55 +0900

On 10/26/06, Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's not a regression to World War II style, since our explosives and delivery systems are more accurate than anything dreamed of in World War II, and our ability to project force is beyond the wildest dreams of World War II planners. But not having smart weapons is a limitation ... we'd have to kill a lot more innocents to repulse a North Korean attack.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true. What Pace is saying is no more than the fairly obvious fact that the US military still has the resources to defeat any conventional military attack from any conventional military force in the world.

That still doesn't answer the question what next? What comes after
"the end of major combat operations"?

Will we have enough of the right people, with the right training and
the right equipment to put boots on the ground and hold the landscape
we have ravaged? Let alone restore civil order and rebuild the
infrastructure we've destroyed?

Given the state of play in Iraq, only a fool would say yes.


John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN

Register to Vote in '06 Elections
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: