submitter

There's this thing called "time", which, as it moves forward, causes things to do another thing called "change".

Also, "more troops" then meant something quite different than what Bush just did.

Here's a game. Who said this (edited slightly to remove specfic references to time and place):

"Our ... allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular ... security forces. It means bringing to the [people] an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

We have chosen to fight a limited war ... in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the [enemies] succeed in overrunning and taking over ... by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later."

And when?

5000_gallons_of_toothpaste

LBJ?

Got it in one.

The full quote:

Our South Vietnamese allies are also being tested tonight. Because they must provide real security to the people living in the countryside. And this means reducing the terrorism and the armed attacks which kidnaped and killed 26,900 civilians in the last 32 months, to levels where they can be successfully controlled by the regular South Vietnamese security forces. It means bringing to the villagers an effective civilian government that they can respect, and that they can rely upon and that they can participate in, and that they can have a personal stake in. We hope that government is now beginning to emerge.

We have chosen to fight a limited war in Vietnam in an attempt to prevent a larger war--a war almost certain to follow, I believe, if the Communists succeed in overrunning and taking over South Vietnam by aggression and by force. I believe, and I am supported by some authority, that if they are not checked now the world can expect to pay a greater price to check them later.

I should add that the quote in question is from LBJ's State of the Union, justifying his escalation of the Vietnam War.

How, I wonder, will history judge Bush when we get to look back on this from 30 years in the future? Not well, I think.

They supported sending 500 thousand soldiers there a while ago, when there was a legitimate national interest at stake and we had the support of the balance of the nations of the world.

If the only way to actually win it is to get 500 thousand soldiers on the ground (I hate the word "troops"), then it's not winnable, and we need to get the fark out.

Sadly, facts don't play well in the media. The truth isn't acknowledged by the people in charge, who will say "we made mistakes" and then keep doing the same thing.

The textbook definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly with the expectation of a different result.

You can't put that entire force into play at once. And most of them have already done time in Iraq or Afghanistan. Many others are manning bases around the world.

That also includes cooks, mechanics, pilots, truck drivers and every non-combat arms MOS. Every one of them is trained to use a weapon, but how long can you commit 100% of your force with no logistics? Not long.

The number of combat-effective soldiers is an order of magnitude less than the number you need to support those soldiers in the field.

Right now, there's no way in hell we could get 500 thousand soldiers without a draft, and a pretty heavy one at that.

Headso

Because we can't farking drive from Fort Bragg to Jalalabad, that's why. Bases in other countries like Germany are critical to the US ability to project force around the world.