Quote Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut.
I would say that the one creating the bandwagon needs more blame than the ones jumping on it (that's still bad though).

Quote Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making.
There's more than one way to move in supplies, so I doubt that the troops will suffer supply depletion. It will probably cost more though.

Quote Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.
Point is, you did never pay enough to win and the limited resources where wasted thanks to general screw-ups on a lot of stages.

So now you can choose into either massivly increase resources (a polictical suecide and won't go thruogh congress as both parties will shut that down).

Or continue as now in a nice quagmire (where even with greater success militarily, the harder political part is still left. Applies for the first option as well).

Or cut and run. With the effects that will mean (a definite reputation loss, a possible increase for imported terrorism (for short to medium term), poor days of being an Iraqi, better days of being in US military, etc, etc.

Lovely choises aren't they?

The big question though is if keeping the current situation is supporting the troops?