Originally posted by Rex Barnes: So, I take it we agree that Bush has not secured most of Iraq and its borders. Let�s call this what it is: a military failure. A competent commander in chief would not get bogged down in a guerilla war in a hostile region.
Iraq is different and no amount of troops could come close to stemming the inrush of wackos that are making their way into that region
Generals Shinseki and Zinni and many others disagree with you. So does Senator John McCain. And apparently so do the majority of our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (let me know if you need to see the latest reports on that). They all are faulting Bush (and Rumsfeld) for going in with too few troops to do the job.
The "inrush of wackos" was forseeable and should have been prepared for. It seems you are using it as an excuse for Bush's failure to provide secure conditions for elections and the establishment of a new government, but most of us see it as a damn good reason for not stepping into this trap in the first place.
Bush has not set forth a plausible plan for quelling the insurgency and establishing order. Face the facts: the so-called "government" of Iraq is trapped in the Green Zone and frightened to even show its face in public. That is not going to change in the foreseeable future unless there is a major change either in the insurgents or the US military strength there. It is not, as you say, a matter of just needing more time.
Originally posted by JaTo: Let me put this in as simple and easily understood terms as I possibly can:
IRAQ'S BORDERS ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOCK DOWN AND SECURE.
Really? Saddam managed to do it. He had the place so secured that we couldn't even get an CIA agent in there to see what was going on.
