[Arkie2]

20,000 troops doesn't constitute a massing of forces. I believe we've had near that same amount there on a more or less continuous basis. In fact, 20,000 troops could only be considered a blocking force. It's nowhere near enough to constitute an offensive threat. Did I miss something here?

[Cicero]

They have beefed up the forces there, but I agree that it's probably just a stronger blocking force, to prevent Saddam from spreading the war into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If we attack Iraq, the signs are that we will do it the way we attacked the Taliban. Precision bombing, payoffs to Saddam supporters to betray him, use of the Kurds and possibly the Turks, efforts to stir up dissent and local revolts. In Afghanistan, the simple perception that the US was winning the war was enough to swing most of the locals over to the other side. I believe they will try to do the same thing in Iraq. It's one thing that the CIA is good at.