These are not mutually exclusive. We have enough troops in Iraq. And they are going to stay there for a long time because we don't have enough troops to replace them.
Buckethead:
We DON'T have enough troops in Iraq. Right now, our country has managed to step into not REbuilding, but indeed BUILDING a nation's infrastructure.
Troops are needed in the short run to quell insurgency, restore order, and get the lights and water running in a competent, efficient fashion. Given the extent of what needs done, there are not enough troops to do these tasks. Or, you could say there are EXACTLY enough troops. Whichever. There are degrees of enough.
Troops are needed in the mid-term to continue to provide security and muscle for rebuilding efforts. Moreover, who the hell else can guard three thousand miles of primitive pipeline through the middle of nowhere? Let's see... three thousand miles of pipeline, any inch of which is vulnerable to a well-sighted person with a sniper rifle and half a dozen rounds (this has already taken out pipelines over there). Say, roving patrols no more than five miles apart... that's a lot of damn troops.
Also, there seem to be terrorists who need an ass-kicking.
In the long term, the picture remains much the same, except that the complexion of the occupation changes to something more like the US presence in Germany. This is easier-- a stable number of troops in rotation.
But first we need to get through the short and middle terms. Who the hell else is going to provide security for the engineers working for Halliburton? Who the hell else is going to run interference for humanitarian missions-- especially since the President kind of burned that UN bridge. For all their faults, the UN does have units who are experience at putting their powder-blue helmets in the line of fire. That could help.
Finally, Buckethead, there's the reservist problem. It's not just that we don't have enough troops in Iraq, it's that we have too many part-timers, and no full-timers to relieve them.
In short, while the two statements might not be in some lights mutually exclusive, I feel that they bring to light some of the contradictions and shortcomings of current DoD policy in Iraq. This is one that we can't fuck up.
Iraq might not be the next Vietnam. Now we need to make sure it's not the next Detroit.
Johno, I was not endorsing the current situation - far from it. I've posted before that we really, really, really need to increase the size of the army. We need to be able to rotate troops now in Iraq out for rest and refit. We need more troops to replace them. We need more troops available to fight terrorists elsewhere in the world. And to deal with unforeseen contingencies like, say, China invading Taiwan.
All I was saying is that it isn't a paradox. It does highlight a huge gigantic problem. And the administration seems willing to go to any lengths to avoid increasing the size of the military. If they just stood up, said "we need five more divisions to fight the war on terror while meeting other security requirements, and at the same time preserve the fighting edge of our current forces" I don't think he'd get much of an argument except from the most rabid leftwingers.
I was actually channeling an ancient, half-remembered Emo Phillips routine about a traffic stop. That'll get you in trouble every time.
I sometimes wonder, if Bill Hicks was alive today, what he would have to say. It's kind of eerie to listen to his material from 1990-91 about President Bush and the War in Iraq.
These are not mutually
These are not mutually exclusive. We have enough troops in Iraq. And they are going to stay there for a long time because we don't have enough troops to replace them.
It's a good thing we have all
It's a good thing we have all these super-duper cool missiles and planes and submarines! Since we now need troops.
Buckethead:
Buckethead:
We DON'T have enough troops in Iraq. Right now, our country has managed to step into not REbuilding, but indeed BUILDING a nation's infrastructure.
Troops are needed in the short run to quell insurgency, restore order, and get the lights and water running in a competent, efficient fashion. Given the extent of what needs done, there are not enough troops to do these tasks. Or, you could say there are EXACTLY enough troops. Whichever. There are degrees of enough.
Troops are needed in the mid-term to continue to provide security and muscle for rebuilding efforts. Moreover, who the hell else can guard three thousand miles of primitive pipeline through the middle of nowhere? Let's see... three thousand miles of pipeline, any inch of which is vulnerable to a well-sighted person with a sniper rifle and half a dozen rounds (this has already taken out pipelines over there). Say, roving patrols no more than five miles apart... that's a lot of damn troops.
Also, there seem to be terrorists who need an ass-kicking.
In the long term, the picture remains much the same, except that the complexion of the occupation changes to something more like the US presence in Germany. This is easier-- a stable number of troops in rotation.
But first we need to get through the short and middle terms. Who the hell else is going to provide security for the engineers working for Halliburton? Who the hell else is going to run interference for humanitarian missions-- especially since the President kind of burned that UN bridge. For all their faults, the UN does have units who are experience at putting their powder-blue helmets in the line of fire. That could help.
Finally, Buckethead, there's the reservist problem. It's not just that we don't have enough troops in Iraq, it's that we have too many part-timers, and no full-timers to relieve them.
In short, while the two statements might not be in some lights mutually exclusive, I feel that they bring to light some of the contradictions and shortcomings of current DoD policy in Iraq. This is one that we can't fuck up.
Iraq might not be the next Vietnam. Now we need to make sure it's not the next Detroit.
Johno, I was not endorsing
Johno, I was not endorsing the current situation - far from it. I've posted before that we really, really, really need to increase the size of the army. We need to be able to rotate troops now in Iraq out for rest and refit. We need more troops to replace them. We need more troops available to fight terrorists elsewhere in the world. And to deal with unforeseen contingencies like, say, China invading Taiwan.
All I was saying is that it isn't a paradox. It does highlight a huge gigantic problem. And the administration seems willing to go to any lengths to avoid increasing the size of the military. If they just stood up, said "we need five more divisions to fight the war on terror while meeting other security requirements, and at the same time preserve the fighting edge of our current forces" I don't think he'd get much of an argument except from the most rabid leftwingers.
The longer we wait, the more painful it will be.
Point taken. "paradox" not a
Point taken. "paradox" not a good word.
I was actually channeling an ancient, half-remembered Emo Phillips routine about a traffic stop. That'll get you in trouble every time.
I sometimes wonder, if Bill Hicks was alive today, what he would have to say. It's kind of eerie to listen to his material from 1990-91 about President Bush and the War in Iraq.