red baron wrote on Apr 14
th, 2015 at 5:46pm:
You see this is exactly how the script went in Vietnam, sending in "non combatant advisors" Only it didn't turn out that way.
Now we see an increase with a further 300 "advisors" sent to Iraq.
Tell you what Tony, do our troops a favour, bring them all back. Our presence in Iraq won't make an ounce of difference to the major sh.tfight that is taking place in the middle east.
Don't make the same mistake that we made in Vietnam. I previously held a different point of view but looking at the international stage and what ISIS is doing, I can only see this turning out badly for our boys.
When the guy who cooks your dinner or cuts your hair, is likely to be the one who cuts your throat in the middle of the night, then you as a solider are between a rock and a hard place.
Let's get them the hell out of there!!!!!!
First the advisors, then some air to give them support on the ground, then some protection for the air assets, then a major commitment of ground troops when that proves insufficient, then the adoption of an aggressive policy of patrolling etc to create a defence in depth and protect the larger perimeter... and so it goes...
Ends up in multi-division sweeps and pitched battles when the locals can't control their own fight....
Cordon it all off, declare it a free fire zone to start on xxth Veeblezwep, and then bomb it flat....
Always amazed me that Uncle Sam would send troops into them hills to find the NVA so the bombers could flatten the valley they were in... why not flatten it first and send in the troops to pick up the pieces? Why recon to pinpoint them when you're going to flatten the joint anyway?