So I got to thinking about the 10,000 troops "needed" in Iraq

[Earth_First]

And wondered to myself, where the hell are all these bodies coming from? In Viet Nam, I believe I read that for each combat soldier on the ground, there were 25 in support operations to keep everything from supply lines open to radio and logistical operations. After the post Cold War cutbacks in military defense spending and recruitment, I would venture to guess that the current military is running on a 12:1 ratio on combat support operations. So let's take that additional 10,000 COMBAT troops, and multiply that by the number of required soldiers to support a division in a combat zone, and you'll end up with 120,000 total troops from quartermaster to boots on the ground infantrymen. Where are these 120,000 troops coming from.

So let me play devil's advocate with myself here for a moment and say, well, we probably won't need exactly 120,000, because there are already 135,000 troops in the Middle East between Iraq and Kuwait, a major portion of the logistical support is already in place. While this may be true, I can't help but wonder if 135,000 troops cannot sustain themselves as it is, what is adding another 10,000 to 20,000 going to add to the mix? Better efficiency in combat? My guess would be just the opposite. Allow this to become a problem, and watch troop morale disintegrate, as well as recruiting and retention numbers take a hit after the stop losses are lifted.

Long story/point short, anyone who is not taking the 'D' word seriously is incredibly naive and shortsighted. The whole counter to this conversation, "Well Rumsfeld specifically said that there will be no draft..." is absurd. I wouldn't trust a member of PNAC any further than I could throw him...

[kalian]

1. They don't need "combat troops"....

just "bullet magnets" so that the combat troops can be given some
R&R before being sent on their merry way to Iran...

[stellanoir]

2. According to several analysts. . .

More troops were required in the beginning of the invasion. They could have prevented the looting, the firing of the existing security forces, the 60% unemployment rate that is only fueling the insurgency fire. 10,000 troops will do dukey. The policy of insensitivity and idiocy has to change.

[leesa]

4. There should never have been an invasion. It violates both our

Constitution to launch an unprovoked attack against a disarmed nation, and it violates international agreements we have made.

What's the point of arguing more troops in the beginning would have made it better? It can never be better because the US was dead wrong to invade. The Iraqis have no choice but to fight back to regain their country and resources that we are stealing.

[stellanoir]

5. I agree with you. . .

I felt this pre-emptive attack was totally unwarranted and illegal.
However the short sightedness of it's implementation from the get go perpetually continues to astound me. Democracy is never forced through a gun barrel. But could we have possibly done it more horrendously than we've done it. . .?

[NNN0LHI]

3. You make some excellent points and I agree with you

Thanks for the post.

Don