[quote]JeffR wrote:
Would having 160,000 or 3 million more people on the ground in Afghanistan really have made any difference? [/quote]
Yes. You’re right about political pressures in Pakistan, but the Special Forces and airpower Rumsfeld strategy in Afghanistan had a lot wrong with it.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Would having 160,000 or 3 million more people on the ground in Afghanistan really have made any difference?
Yes. You’re right about political pressures in Pakistan, but the Special Forces and airpower Rumsfeld strategy in Afghanistan had a lot wrong with it.[/quote]
Do you think Bin Laden would have just sat and waited in Afghanistan for us to mass 3 million troops?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Would having 160,000 or 3 million more people on the ground in Afghanistan really have made any difference?
Yes. You’re right about political pressures in Pakistan, but the Special Forces and airpower Rumsfeld strategy in Afghanistan had a lot wrong with it.[/quote]
The strategy used in Afghanistan was excellent. Even John Kerry approved of it.
If we would have invaded with 100,000 US troops we would have gotten zero assistance from the Northern Alliance. The whole country would have turned against the US forces.
Mistakes were made but it appears they were when the conventional Army took over from the special forces.
The reliance on Pashtun troops at Tora Bora was a big mistake but other than this (and Operation Anaconda) the liberation of Afghanistan was a job well done.
Operation Anaconda was a conventional Army mess.
It is a shame we were not able to use a similar strategy in Iraq.
But somehow they’re nation allows them to kill innocent men, women and children without provocation!
Odd huh?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Al-queda is on the ropes. I say we keep swinging full steam. OBL wants a truce? yea right.
The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.[/quote]
That’s what I’m thinking. They are falling, now’s the time to finish them off. NO MERCY!