22 Jul 2008, 15:12, 5th Edition

Some people are saying "the Surge was a success". Others are correctly saying
"if there were more troops in Iraq at the start of the invasion most of the
deaths and destruction would never have occurred in the first place."

On February 25th, 2003, General Eric Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, told a
Congressional Hearing that "several hundred thousand" American soldiers would be
required to achieve the least costly success in Iraq. Two days later, SecDef
Rumsfeld and his toady, DepSecDef Wolfowitz told Congress that Shinseki was
nuts, and that a successful invasion of Iraq could be completed with far fewer
troops. Virtually every Army general then and later, including the gutless Tommy
Franks, John Abizaid, Ricardo Sanchez and David Petraeus, saw which way the
prevailing wind was blowing and jumped on the bandwagon that sided with
Rumsfeld. Of course, years after each of the above failed to secure peace in
Iraq and left the military they have all switched their minds to proclaim that
Shinseki proved to be right.

Now Petraeus is being congratulated for doing exactly what Shinseki recommended
before George Bush handed Shinseki his walking papers in punishment for
disagreeing with Rumsfeld... Petraeus brought in more troops to reduce
opposition to American forces.

Yes, we can all agree that violence against American troops has dropped since
more troops were sent to Iraq under what is being called "The Surge". But as of
yet no one is giving proper credit to Eric Shinseki for giving that message
BEFORE the invasion. Nor is anyone criticizing Petraeus for refusing to back up
Shinseki in 2003, or giving Shinseki credit for what some are saying was
Petraeus' original idea.

Yes, it didn't take a baby Patton to realize that more US troops on station
prevents armed opposition and loss of life. Yet, because the gutless generals
who earned promotions, higher pay and status for not supporting Shinseki are
also responsible for the needless loss of both American and Iraqi lives because
they supported Bush in waging war on the cheap. Over 3,000 American lives have
been lost since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech because Bush wanted to save
money on military payroll (money which he willingly paid out to mecernary
"contractors") which cost far more in blood than the elongated, needlessly
protracted war has so far cost in far more dollars. Everyone now agrees with
Shinseki that the payroll cost of "several hundred thousand troops" in 2003
would have ended the war quickly, stabilized the country, allowed Iraqi oil to
be produced and sold, and thereby saved the American taxpayers over a trillion
dollars.

Now that it has been confirmed that Eric Shinseki was right all along... and the
gutless cowards who chose to back Bush for promotions, etc., President Obama
should look first to re-instating Eric Shinseki back into uniform as Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs to finalize the war in Iraq and successfully conclude the
mission in Afghanistan.

It's the right thing to do.

http://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htm

        U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
        reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
        with our laws this report cannot be provided in
        its entirety. However, you can read it in full
        today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
        this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
        the distributing Library. This report is provided
        for your information and discussion.

-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
   Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
   The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
   16907 Brighton Avenue
   Gardena CA 90247
   1-310-532-0634

   Military Webmaster Site Link Request Form:
   http://www.amervets.com/linkreq.htm

   Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
   http://members.aol.com/amerwar/share.htm