[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.

[CSM]

I don't think this quote is specific enough to support your claim disputing the 120K number. 120K is 60% of the 200K in the quote and 60% of an estimate could be argued to be "a much smaller force". In addition, we have special operations troops backed up by regular units.

Think about it, if your paycheck were to all of a sudden become 60% of what it currently is, your claim would be that you were being paid much less than before.

I just don't see that quote as anything but a vague statement that can be used to support either side of the argument.