It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by marg6043
I remember back when the first stage of the war it was a general (I maybe mistaken) he said that to have a successful campaign in Iraq 500 thousand troops were needed and that was a combine coalition forces.
Originally posted by FredT
It was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the long name that was hard to pronounce. He got canned before the war.
Frontline did an excellent bit on this. I will try to find a link
Asked about one recent estimate that up to 500,000 coalition troops might be needed in Iraq, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``No, I don't agree.'' American forces there, he said on CBS Face the Nation, were ``supremely confident in their ability to deal with the threat.'' But while the military was ``stretched thin'' around the globe, the general added, it could send more troops if commanders on the ground in Iraq made the request.
Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.
Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.
Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.
Originally posted by infinite
If this war was UN backed, other countries would be helping out, but seeings we wanted to go without the UN...we have to clean up our own mess
...but the lack of support is a clear evidence of how the other nations don't agree with the way the invasion was done.