You know, as a voter and as someone who has been around a few years. I have heard the argument that 'we just need more troops' before. In fact, I heard that all through the sixties and early seventies. Generals always want more troops, it is up to civilians to keep them in check.
Troops are not pawns in a chess game, but are actual people with actual families who actually mourn the loss of loved ones. This is why much of the American public has a distaste for war and why we don't want to prolong it.
We need more troops to win? Win what? What is the metric, break the back of the Taliban? Get real. What have we 'won' in Iraq? How much of a threat is Vietnam since we pulled out with our tail between our legs?
This is just deja-vu all over again.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 23/6/10 13:05 (UTC)Troops are not pawns in a chess game, but are actual people with actual families who actually mourn the loss of loved ones. This is why much of the American public has a distaste for war and why we don't want to prolong it.
We need more troops to win? Win what? What is the metric, break the back of the Taliban? Get real. What have we 'won' in Iraq? How much of a threat is Vietnam since we pulled out with our tail between our legs?
This is just deja-vu all over again.