Posted on 01/09/2005 9:27:19 AM PST by Ranger
Hiring more firefighters is one thing. Sending more into the buildings, or more to fight a specific fire is another thing. The optimum size of the force is based upon the actual mission, logistics capability, and how much point you have in the spear. More people can mean shorter supplies, as well as more troops needed for force protection (which doesn't help the mission).
We should have been building up Regular forces a bit so that we can let Reservists and Guard go back home. The Reserve and Guard are only supposed to be interim forces. THAT part I think Rumsfeld is quite wrong on.
That would be a change in mission. Maybe a good one, but a change. The increase in troops needed wouldn't be small, but maybe a half million more or so. At that point, we might as well colonize the place. Which would completely change the politics of the situation both inside and outside Iraq.
Its rare that I agree with an article so emphatically. Its rare to see such an article so clearly and accurately lay out a complicated topic in a balanced manner. If that makes me a lefty with neoconservatives so be it. Last I checked, I was still an American.
I saw three complete rotations of unit sin 19 months, and I became institutional memory and if you know me that is a scary thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.