We are about to find out what happens when you have a war and no one comes

[NNN0LHI]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003176716_troops05.html

Unspoken consensus: U.S. short on troops

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The Bush administration's decision to move as many as 4,000 additional U.S. soldiers into Baghdad to quell sectarian warfare underscores a problem that's hindered the American military from the beginning: There aren't enough troops.

Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately agree.

When U.S. forces have cracked down in one place, Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists have popped up in another. Some towns have been pacified multiple times, only to return to chaos as soon as troop numbers are reduced.

That reality has taken a toll on American morale, undermined Iraqi confidence in the United States and cast doubt on the Bush administration's hopes of beginning significant withdrawals of soldiers and Marines this year. There are 130,000 service members in Iraq.

"This is exactly what happens when there aren't enough troops: You extend people, and you deplete your theater reserve," said a U.S. defense official in Iraq, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers will discuss concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There's an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn't want to hear about the need for more troops.

[QuestionAll...]

1. makes me think this has been the program all along...

the weakening of america.
now I wonder who may take squatters rights....

[panader0]

2. McCain called it "whack a mole"

Our policy of securing one area merely to see resistance rise in another area.

[napi21]

3. Yep, McCain told a Gen they were playing a game of

Whack-A-Mole over there! Smack 'em down in one spot and they pop up in a different spot!

[NNN0LHI]

4. Next thing McCain will figure out is that the Iraqis are reproducing n/t

[whosinpower]

5. Which General was forced to retire?

Because he stated that they would need around 700 000 troops??????

[NNN0LHI]

6. He is discussed at the end of the article in the OP n/t

[sutz12]

7. We couldn't "pacify" Vietnam with 500k troops.

Is anybody really surprised? :shrug:

I know it's not totally that simple, but the basic premise is the same. The occupying power is at a disadvantage. Anybody with some historical knowledge knows this. Unfortunately, our leaders have none.

[sarge43]

8. Let's see

Their side:

1. The Middle East where they've been fighting empires and invaders for the past 5,000 years, practice makes perfect.

2. Urban battleground, one of the worst tactical problems on the books no matter who you're fighting.

3. Guerrilla warfare, no headquarters, no capital, no front, no chain of command, no industrial or comm centers, no concentration of forces, a shadow enemy with the best possible camouflage - anonymity.

Our side:

1. No clear mission objective

2. Undermanned, under supplied, nothing to hope for, just more the same, no support from any of the other combat branches, strictly a ground pounders fight and nightmare (see 2 and 3). Surrounded by a civil population which is either actively hostile or bitterly neutral.

3. Led by military careerists and civilians who have either lost all contact with reality or are utterly indifferent.

Frankly, if we increased the numbers by a factor of ten, we'd still be screwed, blewed and tattooed.