And If Enough Troops Had Won?
The "Not Enough Troops" crowd, dubbed the NETties
because they are so tedious to have earned a label, are compulsively picking at the past again. Apparently they believe that packing 400K troops into a narrow front and advancing them in a coherent manner in a limited timeframe is simplicity itself. I wonder if any of these people have ever stood around and waited for a complex military evolution to go forward in a narrow timeframe. I really doubt that any of these NETties have ever tried to make a complex military evolution move forward in a timely manner.
Nevertheless, here is my take:
If we had destroyed the Iraq insurgency immediately, the global supporters of terrorism would have stopped backing that front and moved their efforts elsewhere. As it stands, the bulk of anti-western terrorist funding and activity is being directed towards Iraq, where we have prepared troops and a secure logistics chain.
We have found and fixed the enemy's attention and are routinely capturing and destroying them. We have grasped them firmly by the nose and are kicking their asses soundly. This process is not always pretty and it is by no means perfect, but we are mangling the enemy's capacity and will to fight. What part of this constitutes a failure to plan or execute? Why should we agree to shift the fight away from ground of our choosing where we are winning?
I would rather fight this fight in the hot, dirty, stinky, and distant place it currently resides than wait for it to come to my home. I really like keeping the war distant from my wife and family, and I'm willing to put up with hot, dirty, stinky, and…refreshing malted beverage deprivation penalty to keep things away from them. This location choice is why I raised my hand, and why I go to work on base every day.