http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1461.shtmlGo Big, Go Long, Go Home, or Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long
You can’t make this stuff up. So why take credit for it, other than rewriting what the huckleberries at the Pentagon have said?
Go Big, Go Long means actually increasing troops in Iraq by 20 to 30 thousand soldiers in the short run, with a long-term commitment to suped-up training and nudging Iraqi forces, and then, in the long run go home. This is in spite of the recent election-“thumping” of the Republicans (George Bush/Dick Cheney) for being there in the first place, illegally, immorally, treasonably, wastefully, new world orderly.
Go Big straight-up, which preceded the above, is just to dramatically increase troops (like by 200,000) and try to kick ass of both the sectarian (religious) and "insurgent" (home-grown) violence. Good luck. Make Charley Rangel president and bring back the draft to help get all those liberal-ass rich and middle-class college-bound draft-dodgers to pitch in.
Go Home, the only option that makes any sense, was crapped on summarily by the Pentagon think group (it figures,) because they think it could push Iraq into a major bloody civil war (sort of like what’s going on now). But then this is what will happen no matter how long you sit there, or how many troops you throw in, 'til you get tired of the murdering and being murdered and go home. They, the Iraqis who are fighting us, are not going anywhere, which is what happens typically with “insurgencies.” They surge in a minute after you leave.
The last and strangest plan, which sounds like a combination dinner at the Metro Diner down the block on Broadway, is the Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long plan. You get that? You get two vegetables with a potato when you order the Salisbury steak, but just one vegetable and no potato with the hamburger, which is really Salisbury steak in a different shape, but so what.
-snip-
read on
------------------------