> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Franks is, I think, a choice that might surprise > people a little bit. I'm quite serious, though. > Tommy Franks, as leader of CENTCOM, led the liberation > of two countries at a cost of less than 500 allied > lives. Where the Soviet Union and Iran were unable to > make progress with years of effort, he won in weeks. > In Afghanistan he smashed the Taliban using > unconventional special forces tactics where the USSR > failed completely. In Iraq he used a battle plan so > daring that Patton himself would have quailed at it - > and won a victory that _Dissent_, a leftist magazine, > said can be compared only to Agincourt, and probably > not even there. If that sort of performance, not once > but _twice_, doesn't get you on the roster of > America's greatest generals, what does?
OK. I'm going to tread where I shouldn't because this is an area where my knowledge is sketchy at best but... My first thought when reading the above is "is the war in either Afghanistan or Iraq really OVER?" Sure we've said it is over but there's still a lot of fighting going on and bad guys out there. If I recall correctly (and I might not), the Soviets had great success in the invasion of Afghanistan early on. But it was when they installed their puppet government that they failed. They couldn't pacify the people and make the government stick. We haven't exactly done a stellar job there in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is still early, in both cases, especially in Iraq, but only time will tell how we do at nation-building. The Talliban are still out there; a USSR style failure could still happen. Unlikely, and I certainly hope it doesn't, but possible. - jmh _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
