Did you miss the Pentagon press briefing yesterday in which the Major in charge of EOD in that region indicated he had destroyed a significant quantity of explosives from that site? Total tonnage by the way is less than 1/1000 of all ordnance thus far destroyed.
The latest on this is that the Major destroyed a different cache of weapons at the same facility--the ones destroyed did not have the U.N. seal on them, were from a different part of the facility, and were not "plastic explosives" but other ordinance (see AP reports on Sunday,
10/30). These same reports raise the issue of the total amount of captured/destroyed/to-be-desroyed weapons. While the White House says some 400,000 tons of weapons have been or will be destroyed, there are some 250,000 known tons yet to be secured or found. I have yet to see independent verification of these figures, and I have a difficult time trusting WH figures.Personally, I think a commander-in-chief bears responsibility for the conduct of military operations under his watch. If those operations go FUBAR, he takes the fall; after all, he's the guy who hires his advisors, takes their advise and makes the decisions. If any of these parts fail, it's his failure--it's his responsibility--this is called the "chain of command". He's said he doesn't think his running of the war needs to change. That's twice the failure, in my book.
Dan
As a long term member of a combined city/rural fire protection district. Fires in the rural district presented virtually no threat to the town. We could surround the town and keep any fire away. It never occurred to any of us to think of how the rural fire presented a risk to us. These folks traded in our town. (Some of the funds we had for equipment came about because we responded to their fires) but that's beside the point. We considered them to be "Our fires". The innocent Iraqis, slaughtered by Sadaam were "our human brothers". Sometimes humanitarian efforts require more than saving old clothes and sending them.
bob g.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
Can't speak for Fred but... Massive numbers of troops reinforcing each other can overwhelm and intimidate an enemy where small number are just that... sitting ducks.
bob g.
How do you reconcile the innocent Iraqis killed by our actions?
oh.. ok.....I didn't realize more of our troops massed together would be more intimidating than the explosives packed in the car being driven by a suicidal pawn.
I'll agree Bob on this one.
Now back to your answer to the question of what you mean by overwhelming force:
"not JUST more ground troops."
That is stil pretty vague but I suppose you mean more air support since there isn't much call for naval support.
Can you suggest how that overwhelming force that does not take the form of ground troops can be effective against guerilla tactics?
Overwhelming force that causes more colateral civilian casualties is exactly what the insurgents and foreign resistance want. That is the strategy that won the Vietnam War.
It is one thing to go into a neighboring community to help fight THEIR fires. It is another to set a backfire that consumes the community.
Overwhelm-
1: upset,overthrow 2 a: to cover up completely b: to overcome by superior force or numbers c: to overpower in thought or feelingYou, Bob and I have all used this word yet we've used it in different context. When I say overwhelming force I do not mean a presence that will hopefully cause the insurgents to "feel" they are overpowered. When I say "not JUST more troops" I mean that merely increasing the numbers without the intent of actually crushing the enemy is merely increasing the numbers of our casualties. As we should have learned in Vietnam, you have to fight a war without hamstringing your military for the sake of public opinion. As you have stated, the insurgents are using that against us. Your candidate is using that to further his career.
As I stated earlier, "we" are a tad bit too squeamish when it comes to the reality of war.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.