Articles about insufficient troop strength and the US military being "stretched thin" are everywhere. Of course, we don't actually know if it is true. Regardless, I wonder now if this (insufficient troops or the cultivated perception of such) could be a deliberate strategy on the part of the PTB?
On CNN TV tonight were US officials responding to the question of whether the American military could handle a "third front" or "flare up" in Iraq or Afghanistan or other "emergency situation" that required the immediate attention of additional US troops. There were, of course, two sides to the response, but the bottom-line message seemed to be that although the National Guard and Reserve troops are great in number, they are not prepared to leap into active duty that involves combat and could not be prepared in time.
So? As part of making this assessment, it was suggested that if such an "emergency" or "flare up" occurred, the only way to deal with it would be by "brute force." In other words, by massive, overpowering assault with advanced weaponry. The implication, which was also stated to some degree, is the the US military in the mideast is being really humane and careful not to hurt anyone unnecessarily (unless you live in Falluja, Haditha, etc.), using the much-touted smart bombs and laser-guided missiles and such (which we know don't work all that precisely) to preserve as much of Iraq and its people as possible (apparently, a lot of Americans still believe that line).
It was stated that to use these super-smart, life-saving, precision weapons, a lot of data collection and computer programming, etc. is needed to make them work, all of which takes more time than a crisis might allow. So, if an "emergency situation" requiring more troops did develop, they would just have to hammer it bluntly to pieces.
The final word was, if an "flare up" occurred, the US would engage and would win, but it would be "messy."
Sounds like a potential excuse to "let loose." It's on the News, so either they're just making hay or they're planting the idea in the public mind. They're saying up-front that this could happen, which strikes me as a "cover-your-aXX," we-told-you-so kind of disclaimer/warning.
My apologies if this ground has been covered already. Thoughts?
On CNN TV tonight were US officials responding to the question of whether the American military could handle a "third front" or "flare up" in Iraq or Afghanistan or other "emergency situation" that required the immediate attention of additional US troops. There were, of course, two sides to the response, but the bottom-line message seemed to be that although the National Guard and Reserve troops are great in number, they are not prepared to leap into active duty that involves combat and could not be prepared in time.
So? As part of making this assessment, it was suggested that if such an "emergency" or "flare up" occurred, the only way to deal with it would be by "brute force." In other words, by massive, overpowering assault with advanced weaponry. The implication, which was also stated to some degree, is the the US military in the mideast is being really humane and careful not to hurt anyone unnecessarily (unless you live in Falluja, Haditha, etc.), using the much-touted smart bombs and laser-guided missiles and such (which we know don't work all that precisely) to preserve as much of Iraq and its people as possible (apparently, a lot of Americans still believe that line).
It was stated that to use these super-smart, life-saving, precision weapons, a lot of data collection and computer programming, etc. is needed to make them work, all of which takes more time than a crisis might allow. So, if an "emergency situation" requiring more troops did develop, they would just have to hammer it bluntly to pieces.
The final word was, if an "flare up" occurred, the US would engage and would win, but it would be "messy."
Sounds like a potential excuse to "let loose." It's on the News, so either they're just making hay or they're planting the idea in the public mind. They're saying up-front that this could happen, which strikes me as a "cover-your-aXX," we-told-you-so kind of disclaimer/warning.
My apologies if this ground has been covered already. Thoughts?
