Modbert
Daydream Believer
- Sep 2, 2008
- 33,178
- 3,055
- 48
- Thread starter
- #141
because ultimately, had there been any type of rational judgment about Iraq, there wouldn't have been a need for a "surge". We shouldn't have been there in the first place. And if we DID insist on going in, the "surge" should have been our troop level on day one after entering baghdad.
The US conducted wargames in the late 90's to see how many troops it would take to invade Iraq in case of something like this and how long it would take.
It ended up being around 250,000-280,000 troops and we'd only be there between two and six years.
We never had anything near that number at any point. The surge also only brought troop levels back to where they were the year before.
We also made a mistake in rushing to Baghdad in order to look good and go take down a statue. Meanwhile the terrorists went back to their bunkers and forts that were set up that we ran past without setting up the perimeter correctly.
Bush wanted his "Mission Accomplished" so damn badly that he didn't give a damn about how he got it. The invasion of Iraq despite how wrong it was could of worked if done right.
However, Dubya must of been thinking ahead for all his oil and defense contract friends whom he gave no-bid contracts to.