Ex-Weapons Inspector: Too Few Iraq Troops (David Kay)

[Khephra]

TULSA, Okla. -- The Bush administration failed to prepare adequately for postwar Iraq and has stationed too few troops there to maintain security during the occupation, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector said Friday. David Kay, who resigned from the CIA in January and told Congress "we were almost all wrong" about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, said he expects U.S. involvement in the country to result in more violence.

"We have too few troops there," Kay said at a speech to the Oklahoma Bankers Association. "We had enough troops for a brilliant military victory ... But it's too few to win the peace."

Kay, now a senior fellow at the Arlington, Va.-based Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, said the U.S. needs about 200,000 troops to maintain security in Iraq. There are currently are 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 24,900 troops from coalition countries, according to the Pentagon.

snip.........

"We've reached a point where we have two options: Cut and run, but this wouldn't be pretty and it would be irresponsible; or we can struggle and try desperately to lower the level of violence in the next 60 days when we can turn it over to the Iraqis or the U.N.," Kay said.

more...........

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-weapons-inspector,0,6772665.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[Ironpost]

1. I believe

cut and running is about our only choice. Do you think that any Iraqi will allow us to have anything to do with any discussions concerning their new government. We are going to have to turn the occupation over to the UN and Nato. In hindsight we really made a huge mistake in allowing this to happen.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. What, and leave all that tasty light sweet crude?!

Not on your bippy.

[Gothmog]

2. Bush was told that we needed more troops

There is a big difference between beating the Iraqi army and then occupying the entire country. Bush was told that it would take 200,000 to 300,000 troops to police Iraq and fired the general who gave him this bad news. Now that assessment has pr oven correct.

[buddy22600]

3. we originally had the troops to do it

but most of them are already dead. bush just won't admit it yet

[jobycom]

5. Ah, watch, this will be Bush's new way of blaming the people

He will say "I wanted more troops, but people were getting restless, and I thought if I asked for more troops, they might want to pull out." Then the Repubs start screaming about how the liberals caused more troop deaths and caused us to lose this war just like we did in Viet Nam, and the media will start interviewing Ann Coulter to tell them why liberals are traitors, and she will say that John Kerry betrayed the troops in Viet Nam and now he's betrayed them again, and that every dead American soldier from both wars is on Kerry's head, and the media anchors will say "Sad how history keeps repeating itself," etc.

Wait for it. They have to find some way to blame Bush's failures on Kerry. It's their only hope right now.

Kerry's role should be to not give Bush the fuel. He should focus now on laying out his plans, defending himself when Bush attacks, and letting Bush hang himself. When we pull back from Fallujah, then Kerry can blast away, but if he blasts away while Bush is failing, Bush will turn the attack on Kerry and convince people Kerry's criticisms caused the attackl. (Don't think he can? Think of Viet Nam-- that's the Republicans' exact argument).