Saturday, May 19, 2007

How many soldiers does it take to find...

You know, while I appreciate the fact that the U.S. military desperately wants to find its three missing soldiers who disappeared after an ambush in Iraq last week, can they really justify tying up 4,000 U.S. troops and 2,000 Iraqi troops in the search? I mean, with all of the tumult going on over there and the need to quell the seemingly entrenched insurgency, one would think those 6,000 military personnel would have more impactful work to do than fruitlessly searching for three soldiers who very well may be dead. I know they want to retrieve their brothers in arms. They would want the same to be done for themselves. But it just doesn't appear to be a good use of scarce resources. And how many more may die in the course of trying to find the others?

It's really unfortunate that the military can't devote that kind of manpower to finding Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Perhaps they just weren't that important in the grand scheme of things, after all? At least, not in the minds of the Bush administration? Of course, they're not even in Iraq. Never were. But that's another story for another day, sadly.

I truly hope they are able to locate the three missing soldiers and bring them back alive. Anything less would be a dire disappointment, not to mention a complete waste of time and money...and quite possibly additional lives.


At 12:17 AM, Blogger Larry said...

Baghdad - Five U.S. soldiers were killed and nine wounded in separate attacks in Baghdad and the restive province of Diyala northeast of the capital, the U.S. military said Friday, and ABC News reported that two Iraqi journalists working for the network's Baghdad bureau were killed by gunmen while on their way home from work Thursday night.

Bush doesn't let news like this ruin his day.

At 7:02 PM, Anonymous M1 said...

Goodness moi, Jack (Drewl) is back!

At 11:13 PM, Blogger DrewL said...

Those Chinese prisons are murder!



Post a Comment

<< Home