Actually the analogy isnt stupid, (and I thank you for sticking with it) its really pretty good if you think about it, because you thought about how to solve the problem in a way besides changing the guys in charge of stuffing the ham into the bag.
THAT is what we need regarding the war. We dont need to change the SecDef, or the generals. We only need people to be open to new and different ideas of how to fix it. Like you said, we need a bigger bag. Ive been saying all along, we need more troops. We dont need to go from a 3# bag to a 5# bag (the 20k surge) we need something more like a 10# bag.
Follow what im saying?
Pushing this imagery to it's maximum, IF you can't get the DEMOCRATS in congress to possibly give you another 3# bag, even if it's ripping, how the hell do you get them to give you a 20# lb bag?
To really push this further- with your 10# ham- in actuality, we did start off with a ten pound bag. The problem was, the "ham" was of an irregular size, it poked out in some parts, stretching the seams, separating the bag. That 10# bag was the right size, assuming there were no unanticipated problems and no irregularities. It would have been a snug fit.
In real life, the military strategy was idea stated was to "TO LEAVE A SMALL FOOTPRINT"
So now, my other post stands. The first attempt was too optimistic, but they tried turning and pushing it into the bag on hand, but while most of your ham is in the bag, a couple parts are sticking out and the bag is strained.
So, how do you get a apathetic Americans and hostile Democrats to authorize a 20# bag when they want to abandon the idea of the 10#?
And, many still think that the use of overwhelming force (or that 20# bag) will have unforeseen consequences through the region as well.
...no more food references....
