Why Iraq Needs More U.S. Troops

[huckleberry]

By Robert Kagan
Monday, September 1, 2003; Page A25

It was just a coincidence that a car bomb killed at least 95 people and a leading Shiite cleric in Najaf on the same morning that the New York Times headline read: "General in Iraq Says More G.I.'s Not Needed." But a few more such unfortunate juxtapositions will sooner or later force the Bush administration to do what it is now desperately trying to avoid doing: Send more American troops to Iraq.

snip

The little secret, moreover, is that neither France nor any other of our leading NATO allies has more than a handful of troops to spare for Iraq. France and Germany are tapped out in missions in Africa, Afghanistan and the Balkans. The British and Spanish are tapped out in Iraq. Polish public opinion is already turning against the deployment in Iraq, and the mounting security problems in Iraq understandably discourage other countries from wanting to participate. The administration's search for a U.N. resolution isn't even aimed at getting European forces but at bringing in the larger forces available from Turkey, India and Pakistan. Never mind whether Turkish and Indian troops in Iraq are really the answer to all our problems in Iraq -- or would instead become part of the problem themselves. The fact is, we may never get them. The Turkish public remains hostile to any deployment. The Indian government is reluctant to take part without a U.N. resolution. And the French have little interest in passing a U.N. resolution solely to help the Americans get Turkish and Indian troops to relieve the American burden in Iraq.

snip


There are good reasons why the administration is not sending more troops to Iraq, of course. But they are not the reasons outlined by U.S. commanders. Those generals are saying we have enough troops in Iraq chiefly because they know full well they dare not ask for more. The price of putting another division or more of American troops into Iraq will be high. It means mobilizing more reserves and using more National Guard forces. It either means pushing the Army to the breaking point or making the very expensive but necessary decision to increase the overall size of the American military, and fast. Right now administration officials don't want to think the unthinkable. Unfortunately, they may be forced to in a month or two. And, unfortunately, by then it may be too late.


more at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8782-2003Aug31.html

[Systematic Chaos]

1. This just in:

Emphyzema sufferers need more cigarettes!

Habitual drunk drivers need more Jack & Coke!

Hyperactive children need lots of sugar and neglectful parents!

The atmosphere needs more carbon dioxide to warm things up in winter!

Sally Struthers needs more Twinkies!

The rich need more tax cuts!

Anybody detecting a pattern here??? Jeezus Freaking H. Christ on a crutch!!!

:argh:

[lebkuchen]

2. Here's Pakistan's answer to sending more troops

http://www.diepresse.at/default.asp?channel=p&ressort=ai&id=374282

The reason Rumsfeld doesn't want to expand the military is because he wants to privatize it first with Halliburton, and then expand after the election, when it can't be used as a political tool against the GOP.

[birdman]

3. Kagan is a PNACer

They seem to be turning on Bush for not
doing right by their brilliant idea.

[kclown]

4. Just a hunch, but it won't go away

Is this Rumsfeld's last week?  The hits on him are really
piling up.  Some UN involvement is beginning to seem
inevitable, and can Bush trust him to bite his tongue?

If so, looking forward, would he go quietly?  And who would go
with him?  Is Cheney's heart OK?