Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
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.

Don't take their thoughts out of context. When they are talking about "securing Iraq", they are talking about key strategic areas and populated cities, not thousands of miles of sand, plains and mountains. I will agree that we did go in with too few troops to secure some of the key areas of concern (nuclear waste sites, chem labs, etc.), and this is compounded with the fact that we disbanded the Iraqi Army into the general population.

I will NEVER agree that we could ever have had enough troops to stop the influx of Islamic extremists into the country.

I would LOVE to see Rumsfeld out of the next administration for this, as he micromanaged much of the logistics of the Iraqi war.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
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.

I agree we have been unprepared to a degree, though with our concerns at the time, there were more reasons to invade Iraq than not to BY FAR.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
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.

You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating continuing on with the same or less number of troops; we certainly need more on the ground. At the same time, getting the Iraqis trained and doing their own work in regard to security is important as well. We've made some serious steps in that direction.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
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.

This is utterly and patently false. We had agents working with the INC, the Iraqi Kurds in the North and I believe we even had folks in the South from '92 onwards.

The problem is that we couldn't get folks in his palaces and other high security areas. Even Scott Ritter, one of the former UN weapon inspection heads complained that CIA agents were infiltrating his group and compromising his mission.

There are numerous journals, news sites and articles that discuss this if you wish for further proof.

Anything else I can address for you?

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe