Now, there's another reason it's a bad idea. If you go to Afghanistan, the Soviet Union had 300,000 troops in Afghanistan and they couldn't do the job. We have 10,000 in there and it's making steady progress. Why? Because we don't want to occupy a country. The Soviets wanted to own Afghanistan.
We don't want to own Afghanistan. We don't want to own Iraq. We want to help them get on their feet and then move out. We do not want to put so many forces in there that we create a dependency on us and then have to stay. We want to keep creating an environment where they can take over their security.
Now, on one hand, I can see his reasoning...on another however, I just think it's a good idea for all parties involved to get some more troops into Iraq, for the time being (assuming the attacks start to pick up; they seem to have quieted down for the moment).
Thoughts?
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
I really doubt any feasible garrison or even a massive short-term surge in Iraq would reduce the number of attacks on US forces, nor reduce causalities from them.
The rule of thumb is you need a 20-25 to 1 manpower advantage to win a guerrilla war, with current force levels that allows for six thousand armed Iraqi resistance running around attacking us. I don't think that many people would conduct so few attacks.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
