Agreed. A disaster is if Saudi Ariba and Iran invading Kuwait cutting US ground forces off. that's a disaster. You pause to consolidate gains, eliminate pockets of resistance, and give your troops a rest.Originally posted by: Astaroth33
A "DISASTER"? That's a rather strong characterization, and I tend to think you're greatly overstating your point. War ebbs and flows; as we fight an enemy determined to kill us, the enemy attempts to come up with tactics that will work against us. US military pushes ahead, so they need to pause, reinforce, and shore up supply lines. That's not a "DISASTER", it's smart. A "DISASTER" would be if the Iraqis managed to cut off the supply line completely, leaving our forward troops vulnerable to counterattack. A "DISASTER" would be if the fedayeen released chemical weapons and gassed the citizens of Basrah. A "DISASTER" would be if the Iraqis manage to pull off a major terrorist attack on US soil in retaliation. A strategic pause is not a "DISASTER".Originally posted by: apoppin
Name a worse one.Originally posted by: SuperTool
This is what happens when you have a president who managed to turn pretty much everyone in the region and beyond against us, and who squandered the support of a global coalition against terrorism, and who could not even convince a fellow NATO ally, Turkey to allow us to start a northern front from their territory. This is one of the most dismal failures of international leadership that I have ever seen.
I can't find one in US history.
This Pause is a DISASTER. It strengthens our enemies and shows that we are VULNERABLE.