|
Will,
The OP DID conjure the 800,000 number out of thin air by directly comparing Germany to Iraq and using the ratios that were necessary then. That's how he got to 780,000, which we've shortened to 800,000 (which I'm fine with). As I've said throughout, it's not a fair comparison.
As far as infrastructure and the responsibility for its upkeep, I am 100% sure that the UN absolutely never takes responsibility for maintenance on roads, etc., especially when they aren't acting as an occupying force. Saying that the sanctions were the direct cause of the deterioration is a big red herring. Sactions certainly CONTRIBUTED, but the Saddam regime certainly could have spent the money if they chose. Granted, they would have had to take money from other causes (military, etc.), which realistically never would have (and didn't) happen, but the fact remains that the UN contributes $0 in 0 countries for infrastructure maintenance. They will, on occassion, contribute to one-off projects, but maintenance is a completely separate interest and is the sole responibility of a sovereign state.
The fact remains that the Iraqi infrastructure is substantially better than that which was left over at the end of WWII. Highways, railroads, factories, water, etc. are all in much better shape than the urban areas of the remains of Nazi Germany. There are no masses of displaced people, there are no bombed out cities, and frankly, the standard of living in Iraq is better than that of the average German in 1945 (granted 60 years of progress certainly effected that fact).
I also come from a longtime military family going back to a several-great-grandfather that served under Jackson at New Orleans and culminating in my father who graduated from West Point. I'm one of only 3 firstborn sons in the last 150 years to NOT serve, but I was a candidate for the Naval Academy and opted not to attend 2 weeks out for various reasons (one big one was that their XC coach resigned shortly before). My information is coming through my dad who has friends that are either still in command or recently retired. It's entirely possible that what I'm hearing is skewed because of the small sampling size, but my dad has told me that all of his friends collectively think that the surge is necessary and was requested. Personally, I see no political advantage to the surge and lots of political pitfalls, but this administration has made some of the most counterintuitive decisions I've ever seen in the past, so I'll easily grant that anything's possible.
Experts at one thing are typically not experts in another. In other words, the intelligence folks aren't the ones we want making tactical decisions, just like the military didn't know shit about WMD pre-invasion. It's just not their job to know. Unfortunately, I'm starting to slowly come to the viewpoint that the "experts" on military action in Iraq and how to win don't know what they're doing. As I hinted at in my second post. Your suggestion sound workable, but as soon as we make something attack-proof, someone's going to invent a better attack. It's the way of the world.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|