AnonymousUser

jimenezng

Comment history

  • jimenezng 

    When I read the summary, especially the VP's strategy approach, I thought the exact same results as itisi. After 9/11, as part of the military, we saw that the mission was coming to shut down Al Qaida. We built up forces, weapons, and logistics that was to kick butt on the Taliban and Al Q. We could do that because, since Clinton downsized the
    military, we went from being able to fight 2.5 to 3 theatre wide wars (thanks to Pres. Reagan) to being able to fight 1.5 theatre wide wars. That means fighting one to win and holding on the other war (not winning).
    We kicked butt in Afganistan when we went in, but the side trip to a war with Iraq took away too much
    warfighting capability. Remember we can only win one
    war at a time with the smaller military we have.
    We do not have the capability we had that won the cold war. Do we want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan? Finish up quickly in Iraq, then win the Afghanistan Taliban Al Qaida fight.
    Remember the Surge that turned the tide in the Iraq War? The forces were taken from Afghanistan.
    The Sec. of Defense and the Joint Chiefs are correct in supporting a "surge" in Afghanistan to turn the tide. I agree itisi getting those B-52's flying from Guam and Diego Garcia to do their job will close those caves down on OBL.