Saturday, June 23, 2007

U.S. doesn't have enough troops in Iraq. Ya think?

From Talkleft:

The news I am going to provide you, via the Washington Post, will shock you. The United States does not have enough troops in Iraq to carry out the mission it has been given:

. . . Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who in 2003 was among the first to call public attention to the relatively small size of the U.S. invasion force, said that the new operation shows how outnumbered U.S. troops remain. "Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000 additional combat troops in a giant city would change the dynamics of a bitter civil war?" he said in an interview yesterday. "It's a fool's errand."

An officer working in Arrowhead Ripper, the subsidiary offensive in Diyala province, said wearily, "We just do not have the forces in country right now to have the appropriate level of presence across the country."

Many counterinsurgency experts agree. Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., the director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a national security think tank, said flatly that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, does not have enough troops. "I suspect General Petraeus is taking a risk here, but that's what commanders do," he said.

1 comment:

airJackie said...

Remember Bush told the world that the US would go it alone. Why? Because the White House knew they were lying about WMDs and knew other countries would ask more questions. Next it was control over Iraq oil for big business. Yes Iraq is a great position for the US/UK to attack Iran/Syria. Now as you see the Axis of Evil's plan didn't work and now all the other countries are saying the US is on their own in this mess.