PNAC calls for increase in ground forces.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

 

Letter to Congress

 

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

 

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

 

These are the same neo-con hawks who scoffed at Shinseki and claimed that the war was won back in 2K3.

[Guest Cerebus]

As far as I can remember the Weekly Standard, as close to a voice the amorphous, faceless, and poorly defined "neo-con" movement has, has always been complaining that there weren't enough troops in Iraq, it has been their chief beef against Bush in fact.

 

For the record, Saddam was toppled with more than enough troops.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As far as I can remember the Weekly Standard, as close to a voice the amorphous, faceless, and poorly defined "neo-con" movement has, has always been complaining that there weren't enough troops in Iraq, it has been their chief beef against Bush in fact.

 

For the record, Saddam was toppled with more than enough troops.

Rummy & the Wolf, as well as the WS itself, pissed all over Shinseki and any notion that circumstances might arise that would require a larger commitment of forces. See the March 24, 2K3 piece by Jeffrey Bell, for instance, or the May 5, 2K3 piece (which applauds Rummy for crapping on Shinseki) by Max Boot.

 

Boot said that post-war Iraq:

probably will not require the 200,000 troops suggested by Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki, but it will require a long-term commitment of at least 60,000 to 75,000 soldiers

 

 

(On a side note: an older lady in one of my roomate's classes was over at the crib the other night to watch a movie for class. She went on a double date w/ Donald Rumsfeld when she was younger.)

[NoCalMike 0]

As far as I can remember the Weekly Standard, as close to a voice the amorphous, faceless, and poorly defined "neo-con" movement has, has always been complaining that there weren't enough troops in Iraq, it has been their chief beef against Bush in fact.

 

For the record, Saddam was toppled with more than enough troops.

No one suggested we would need more troops to "topple Saddam" however the aftermath, and what we are seeing NOW, is what brought up discussions of needing more ground troops.