OK, I just listened to Bush's "New Strategy in Iraq Speech". I remain confused.
We have something like 130,000 US troops in Iraq today. Bush is proposing sending an additional five brigades of troops to Iraq (plus 4,000 to Anbar province; it was unclear if this was included in the five brigades, or in addition to the five brigades), an increase of something like 17,500 combat troops (a brigade is about 3,500 troops). This would bring the total number of US soldiers in Iraq to close to 150,000.
Three years ago, then Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shinseki argued that it would take "several hundred thousand" troops to secure the country. Several hundred thousand is a somewhat vague term (it could range from 200,000 to 400,000), though I have seen other estimates that used the experience and population of Bosnia to extrapolate the number of troops needed in Iraq, and come up with numbers in the 300,000 range.
So if, after Bush's "surge," we end up at 150,000 troops, how is that going to actually solve the problem? Don't we need even more troops today (since the numbers used in Bosnia didn't have to put down an ongoing and active civil war)?
This was a long way of saying: how does an additional 20,000 troops win Iraq for us?
Posted by baltar at January 10, 2007 09:27 PM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs | Iraq | WarIt doesn't, of course. I'm not even clear on how it delays things for two more years. I don't get it.
Posted by: jacflash at January 10, 2007 10:40 PM | PERMALINKI believe the Marines headed to al-Anbar are additional troops - so we're looking at 21500.
Posted by: Armand at January 10, 2007 11:36 PM | PERMALINKOh! Well, it's obvious that 21500 additional troops will assure victory, while only 17500 is marginally insufficient. Everything is clear! (/sarcasm)
I remain confused how adding less than, say, 100,000 troops will improve things (and 100,000 may just create 100,000 new targets).
Posted by: baltar at January 11, 2007 08:20 AM | PERMALINKI remain confused on how we're helping develop a democratic institution vs taking the Shiite side in a nasty civil war, but I'm sure Our Leaders have the situation well in hand so I'll just shut up and go to the mall or something.
Posted by: jacflash at January 11, 2007 10:15 AM | PERMALINKi'm confused with how any particular number of troops (say 300,000 arguendo) is very likely to ensure that, upon their withdrawal under whatever circumstances, the country won't end up riven and violent until it sorts itself out more organically anyway. leave now. leave later. unless we're going to leave everyone in stocks and with feeding tubes, i don't see how this doesn't end in civil war.
Posted by: moon at January 11, 2007 10:47 AM | PERMALINKI don't see how it's not already civil war.
Posted by: jacflash at January 11, 2007 01:21 PM | PERMALINK