[Alberta's Child]

Do you honestly think that one year is a long time for this kind of operation?

No. But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq, when you consider that many of the original estimates of manpower requirements to topple Saddam Hussein in the first place (by the civilians in the Bush administration, of course -- not the military leadership) were nowhere near that high.

[Broadside Joe]

"But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq,"

We had more than that during the war. And aside from all the hand wringing guess what? We won. This all reminds me of that cartoon where there were three kids in the back seat of car yelling "Is it Viet Nam Yet?"...

[mrsmith]

But the 120,000 strength- at this time- was what the administration did decide upon.
Sure some had less and some had larger estimates, but that is what the administration went with.

It's hard to fault them for that.
Even after the very serious setback of the failure of the new Iraqi security forces they only had to increase their numbers by about 15%.

[CSM]

"No. But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq, when you consider that many of the original estimates of manpower requirements to topple Saddam Hussein in the first place (by the civilians in the Bush administration, of course -- not the military leadership) were nowhere near that high."

If this is true, I would be very interested in seeing these estimates. Please point me in their direction.

[jim35]

"...No. But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq,..."

It probably does seem like a lot of soldiers, when you live in a country who's entire military, all branches, all ranks, includes less than half this number! But don't worry, the U.S. has always been willing to carry the water for those too useless to actually do something to help. A simple "thank you" will suffice.