Indeed. Field Marshal Slim said it best "the more you use, the fewer you lose."

 

It's the perpetual war between the military and the fething accountants. Sod the Taliban, we need a UAV that can seek and kill bureaucrats.

It's the perpetual war between the military and the fething accountants. Sod the Taliban, we need a UAV that can seek and kill bureaucrats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, lets not get personal here!

 

The use of too few troops in Iraq had more to do with Rumsfeld's attempt to prove that his plan of "military transformation" would work than it did with cutting costs. Hell, extra troops and tanks are probably cheaper than the extra precision-guided cruise missiles, et al., that his strategy calls for.

Actually, troops are extremely expensive. A 'simple' jarhead costs milllions.

 

And yes, he was trying to prove his doctrine. Fair enough. I criticise him for not accepting it was inappropriate to a full invasion. You know, intervene somewhere small, OK. Take over a country, you need a leeeetle bit more. Of course it coudl just be that he thought if the Brits can be effective with two blokes from Wolverhampton and a half brick...

techically your wrong... in the early days the VP was the runner up in the populatiry contest we call presidential elections.

 

:joy: I corrected Taks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you are correct. solved, sort of, by the 12th amendment. interestingly, it technically calls for separate votes for Pres and Veep... not sure how that plays with reality. i never paid attention "hmmm... this guy, so check this box" and out i went.

 

taks