"SoD Rumsfield purged the penegon of top commenders that disagreed with his troops require accessment, and as you have noted, recent events are proving the accessment incorrect. "
AHem, strawman argument alert.
Rumsefeld didnt "purge" anyone for that reason; the assessment was never a fixed number, but based on events on the ground. As events change, assessments change. Rumsfeld himself has repeatedly cautioned against making predictions since events in the future that once must account for are unknowable. I recall him saying this in April 2003 when press badgered him for predictions on when this, that or the other happened.
So IMHO this mischaracterizes the situation. The reality is that there is ongoing assessment by CENTCOM commanders of what they need and DoD has accomodated those needs throughout. The current assessment of Abizaid is that they DO NOT NEED more troops than what they have, currently around 135,000 and if they did, they would ask for them. He has further stated that he cannot imagine at all any need for very large increment in troop strength. What CENTCOM wants are more Iraqis, so security has an "iraqi" face and doesnt look like a foreign occupation.
See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127579/posts GEN. ABIZAID: Do I have enough troops in Iraq for the current circumstances? Clearly, I asked for more troops. The 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment were on their way home, and I asked that we up the number of forces in the country so that we could have a mobile reserve to deal with the conditions that were developing in the Fallujah area and down in the Najaf-Karbala area.
So asking the question about do we need more capacity in Iraq, we need more Iraqi security capacity and we need more international security capacity. I think many of you have heard me say on a number of occasions that I do not favor large increased numbers of American troops unless they have to deal with an immediate security problem, which is what we currently have.
I do favor the inclusion of more international troops, especially more Muslim troops. For example, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, they all have very capable and very professional forces that could be added to the stability equation once we move into this new level of political future that develops after negotiations in the U.N., or wherever they may take place.
I would also favor the inclusion of other international forces to fill in where we've had the Spanish withdrawal. I believe, and I think Iraqis will second me on this, this needs to be less of an American occupation and more of an international military activity that includes Iraqis, international forces and Americans. So, to the extent that more international forces are able to join the team after a U.N. resolution, we would very much welcome them.
Am I comfortable with where we are now? Militarily, yes. If the situation were to move into less secure circumstances than are currently visible in the country, I would go to the secretary and ask for more forces, and General Sanchez agrees with me on that. But I don't see a need to do that now.
Really, we've beaten down the big uprising of the first week in April. Things still aren't good but they're better than it looked like they might be.