[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.

[Alberta's Child]

"Well, I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."

--- Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board . . . from a 2002 interview with PBS

This dope actually believed that the U.S. could win a war in Iraq simply by using a small group of special forces to support a military force comprised almost entirely of Iraqis.

No surprise here, though. This is the jackass who suggested in a television interview in 1998 that the U.S. could accomplish the same thing with no ground troops at all.

[Alberta's Child]

"We need not send substantial ground forces into Iraq when patriotic Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their country, although measured numbers of Special Forces should not be ruled out."

Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board . . . from his 2000 testimony before Congress.