U.S. Needs 250,000 Troops in Iraq, Weapons Inspector Kay Says

... Force's Size

"In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward. "

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

It would be funny, if it hadn't cost so many lifes ...

It's been pretty apparent that we've been short-handed in Iraq. I believe the US has a total of 1.2 million active duty. They are stationed around the world in sensitive areas to keep "democracy" functioning. We know that old fox Rumsfeld has stated many times that we do not need more people, and yes we have plenty to spare. Don't let the enemy know you're short-handed!!!

I have in fact read that if Iraq were to really get mobilized, we're finished there. Look at the history of VietNam. We were bested by indiviuals, guerrillas. Hiding in plain sight of the Americans, they had to finally give up and go home. I don't know if the ratio was the same in VN; in Iraq it's 1 soldier for every 200 people. That is fairly small. We won't even talk about what would happen if the rest of the muslim world were to start fighting.

My hunch is that Rumsfeld is "doing it on the cheap" as they've accused him of doing. Right now, we're spending $4.2 billion per month on Iraq. Waging a war is expensive. With 250,000 troops, the cost would mushroom to $7 billion per month. He must obviously have some other plans in mind, since he's not willing to use the forces.

So the question of the day is: why are they not doing it?

1) Cost of bringing in more people?
2) risking destablizing sensitve areas?
3) plans for invading other countries?
4) admitting error? for Rum, this is a real possibility

and lost his job?

:headbang:
rocknation

he wants.

The guy mentioned in Post #2.

"On August 1, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld replaced General Shinseki (who consequently retired) as Army Chief of Staff with General Peter J. Schoomaker after Shineski "questioned the cakewalk scenario, and told Congress (that February) that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers in Iraq to put an end to the violence against our troops and against each other." <2>"

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Eric_Shinseki

The secretary (Rumsfeld) also met with retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Garner said the press missed an important part of the story in Iraq.

"When I was in Washington planning this, I imagined all sorts of disasters," he said. Instead, he pointed out, the coalition attack on Iraq was probably the only "merciful" attack in history.

Coalition planners came up with an operation that protected the nation's infrastructure. Garner said he had plans for how to put the country back together if Saddam Hussein had carried out what he feared – fires in the oil fields, massive flooding from Saddam blasting the dams, and millions of refugees, to name just a few.

None of this happened because of the plan and the execution of that plan, Garner said. "There's not much infrastructure problems here other than connecting stuff back together," he said. "I think the American people ought to be proud. This has never happened before in history."

Garner said the plan spared then victims of the regime and put Iraq in a place to be able to chart a new future. "You ought to be beating your chest every morning," Garner said. "Ought to look in the mirror, suck in our bellies and say 'Damn, we're Americans,' and smile."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/n04302003_200304302.html

Who cares what he thinks?

That's just more warm bodies for the insurgents to kill. Casualties would soar to over 2,000 if we did this.

As for the draft, what would probably happen is that they would stop-loss more people, deploy all combat units here in America to Iraq and remove some troops from Korea and Europe. Those forces would probably have to be made up through having a draft.