tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10527623.post116312798463245336..comments2023-06-04T09:42:47.664-04:00Comments on Fire of Liberty: No Matter How You Cut It, Rumsfeld Hewed to Counter-insurgency Doctrinejstarley05http://www.blogger.com/profile/09964387321504737573noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10527623.post-1163203415818479012006-11-10T19:03:00.000-05:002006-11-10T19:03:00.000-05:00Iraq was an issue but I'm not so sure that was the...Iraq was an issue but I'm not so sure that was the finishing nail for the GOP. The main reason they lost is because they turned their nose up to the conservative principles of Reagan/Gingrich. You can't continue to push Run-away spending(Embracing Big Gov't), go lax on ethics, failing to confront illegal immigration, not pushing through permanent tax cuts, failing to confirm some 30 vacancies in the appeals and district judges(Dems will fight like hell if Bush pushes conservative judges now), and pushing new and expensive entitlement programs your more than likely going to piss your base off and they stay home. If Republicans return to their conservative roots and embrace the small government ideology championed by Reagan then you'll see the GOP finding their way out of the wilderness come 08.jstarley05https://www.blogger.com/profile/09964387321504737573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10527623.post-1163183786553718662006-11-10T13:36:00.000-05:002006-11-10T13:36:00.000-05:00I don't think anyone who says 'more troops' are th...I don't think anyone who says 'more troops' are thinking anything like the situation in Vietnam. Basically then, we had a slow-to-react, army who was prepared to fight another 'army'...not a small, quick 'insurgent' force.<BR/><BR/>BUT the most important time for the US in Iraq was just AFTER the fall of the Iraqi army. Rumsfeld was correct that we didn't need a large force of soldiers to beat Saddam and his army, but where the higher # of troops would have helped was maintaining the peace, and keep the positive feeling and support of the population.<BR/><BR/>We went in with just enough troops to beat the Iraqis - hell...we could've had MUCH LESS...but we lacked the # of troops to make the quick, positive steps in making Iraq a safe place. It seems we went with the plan just to defeat the Iraqi army, but didn't have much of a plan for afterwards.<BR/><BR/>After months...then years of limited progress (again...it's never as bad as the news make it out to be), the people's attitude (both HERE and in IRAQ start to change).<BR/><BR/>Progress should (and could) have happend much quicker if we could have gone in with more troops, peace keeping forces, engineers, etc. The positive changes have been much slower than anticipated by both the American people and Iraqis, and I think that's the main reason the Repubs lost the elections.<BR/><BR/>Again...Rumsfeld did a good job of changing the army from a slow, immobile force to a much smaller and quicker-to-respond army. The planning for the force AFTER the defeat of Saddam wasn't there.shliknikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02681147218154928807noreply@blogger.com