Army Plans to Keep 145,000 Troops in Iraq

VERY nice timing of this release, btw. Somehow, I don't think military families will be fooled by the bait-and-switch though.

is part of the answer.

The Qusay and Uday story might just kill the State of the Union (ie. lies, lies, lies) story. We'll see if the media wants to find the truth or if they will just decide that two weeks is enough time.

This will not fool the military families whose loved ones are still not coming home, but it might stop the bleeding Bush has been experiencing lately.

why this large of a force (145,000) will be needed for over a year. And I don't see the need for the Stryker Brigade to be included. It's my impression manpower is not the problem, but just a lack of troops who are capable of peacekeeping and other policing duties.

moving them over there for Syria or Iran? who knows

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030722/5342838s.htm
How peace IN IRAQ became SO Continued violence and chaos not only jeopardize troops but also the future of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East
By Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz

The 1999 exercise recommended a force of 400,000 troops to invade and stabilize Iraq. But at the insistence of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ground forces in the March invasion were held to less than half that: about 130,000 U.S. combat troops and some 30,000 British troops.

The online article does not have the peacekeeping troops used after various wars. I do recollect that 1,600,000 troops was used for Germany with a population of 16 million (10%).

Iraq's population is 28 million.

One action had troops at a rate of 1/40 and another at 1/67. Do the math and we are no where near the troops used in previous actions.

The more men and women we can get into the military the fewer will be looking for jobs.
We will become just like N. Korea where the employment of choice is the military.

in Iraq according to retired Gen. Eric Shinseki.