Originally posted by Mysti-ken: The introduction of references to France and Russia is a red herring
To be honest, Iâ??m not sure I understand these references here â?¦
Although I believe this to be irrelevant to my analysis
Everything I've read about military strategy suggests that planning for specific military actions leaves virtually nothing to chance, nothing unaccounted for including clearly defined objective(s), contingencies for all possible complications; everything from â??getting inâ? to â??getting outâ? including time frame, resource required and a clear set of success metrics to know when the job was done.
Sorry - but no where near convinced my analysis is flawed.
What you have determined to be "red herrings" not understood and "irrelevant" IMO are relevent...I guess we will just have to disagree.
With all due respect to your military reading you list a number of absolutes. Beyond death, destruction, winning and losing their are few absolutes. And you left something out..war is won by the side with the greater WILL to win, which is more important in many cases than planning, resources, training, etc. The ability to gut it out. HOW MANY time to we have to relearn this.
On Iraq, one candidate clearly stands firm.
The other "wrong war, wrong time".."depends on how it turns out", "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". Reliance on the (corrupt) UN's "global test", voted against FIRST Gulf waw, etc, etc..
Folks..if you believe war is won by the side with a greater will, if you think we must win in Iraq or suffer a loss to the jihaddists who fight us there and loss of face in a region of the worldwhere actions not words mean strength, can you HONASTLY argure that Kerry possesses that will to a greater degree. If you can..vote for him.
But I digress, Sorry - but no where near convinced MY analysis is flawed.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
