View Single Post
Old 10-25-2007, 11:25 AM   #29 (permalink)
Bluesman
WAB Bartender
Defense Professional
Military Professional
 
Bluesman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-24-04
Location: Vacaville, CA.
Posts: 7,514
Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis View Post
S-2,



i wouldn't want it to be open-ended- a timetable should be set and kept to. however, a force of around 50K-75K is sustainable over some period of time given the increases in the force structure as outlined by SECDEF gates. and there will be very good benefits: as i said earlier, it will allow our troops to concentrate on defeating al-qaeda, deter turkish adventurism, and if positioned away from the cities, give us a good base for wielding a stick versus iran. this force is sufficient for these matters, but insufficient for running the country (the force we have in place today ain't enough for that, anyways).
I haven't been drinking, so I have NO idea how to explain my total agreement with your very sensible post (with one caveat: NO TIMELINES; every decision on troop levels should be predicated on the extant situation on the ground, PERIOD).

Maybe YOU have been drinking.
__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Bluesman is offline   Reply With Quote