This is of course all nonsense. First of all you are conflating US Armed Forces end strength with a buildup in Iraq of 20,000 soldiers and Marines. You understand the difference, no? There are currently about 150,000 in Iraq, another 10,000 or so in Afghanistan. Including the National Guard and reserves we have a million troops available. If the United States can not reinforce Iraq with 20,000 troops we are in deep kimshi.
As for "zero accountability", that is also nonsense. Congress funds the war, if they decide not to fund it, it will no longer be funded. Pretty simple stuff. It is how this particular constitutional republic works.
As for "volunteers" there are always volunteers. Will there be enough volunteers to fill the 8 divisions that were decommissioned prior to Clinton and a shortsighted Congress? Probably not. But that isn't Bush's fault.
Where does the money come from? We used to spend 6% of GDP on the military and 3% on welfare. Now we spend 6% of GDP on welfare and 3% on the military. There is no "peace dividend" and there never was one. The sooner you and your compatriots understand that the better off America will be.
The Kagan paper that you linked calls for "A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the spring of 2007". This includes ALL of the command and support elements, plus the equipment necessary to prosecute combat. It is not merely 20,000 "grunts" (as you like to call them). The training, material, command, and logistics all come from "end strength" resources. Our nation can not simply crank out a full combat Army Division, and two Marine Combat Brigades in one fiscal quarter and send them into combat for "longer tours for several years". It is not sustainable.
Including the National Guard and reserves we have a million troops available.
We sure do. Are all of these available troops trained, equipped, and configured to deploy into combat battalions for security operations in Iraq?. No, they are not. Some number are trained and equipped for Arctic or cold weather conditions, and some number are trained and equipped for jungle conditions. Still other troops are configured for high mountain and coastal conditions. We must use the correct configuration of our armed forces for any "troop surge". The fact that none of the commanders in Iraq are calling for more troops on the ground is quite telling.
There is no "peace dividend" and there never was one. The sooner you and your compatriots understand that the better off America will be.
I do not know what group of "compatriots" you are lumping me in with. My position is this: If it requires additional forces to be deployed in Iraq to bring security, then by all means let us deploy the right amount. Congress and the administration are duty bound to insure that there is a clear objective to be achieved by sending additional forces. Simply propping up a corrupt Maliki Shiite Hezbullah government is not a valid objective. The Iraqi government is the one showing zero accountability. And our constitutional republic is rewarding the Iraqi government with another $10 Billion. All because of the UN Mandate extended by the security council. "The U.N. Security Council has extended the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for another year. From U.N. headquarters, VOA's Peter Heinlein reports the vote was unanimous." http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-11-28-voa53.cfm