You didn't read what I wrote...
What exactly are you saying is a mistake? Keeping the 4,000 troops in Iraq? This isn't the first time the Army has forced troops to stay on after their tour was over. What's different about this time? I certainly hope you aren't advocating altering military strategy abroad in order to swing an election one way or another at home.
Obviously, the Army wouldn't be doing this if the commanders didn't think the security situation warranted it. Why are you second guessing them? With no end to the carnage in Baghdad and environs in sight, the Army bringing those troops home could affect the election even more than letting them stay.
Ben's response:
Mr/Ms A.,
I didn't say keep 4,000 troops in Iraq; I asked what conceivable purpose could it serve to add 4,000 troops in Iraq.
If you an idea about that, please let me know.
Ben
Publish this comment.
Reject this comment.
Moderate comments for this blog.
Posted by Anonymous to Wattenblog at 9/25/2006 06:47:41 PM
posted by Ben Wattenberg at 7:27 PM
1 Comments:
Ben, read the article again. The troops mentioned in that article are already in Iraq. They are not being sent there from the UNited States. Their tour of duty is being involuntarily extended, which is the point of the article. "Army Extends Combat Tours for 4,000 Soldiers in Iraq," which is the headline.
Post a Comment
<< Home