Size of force on ground key in plan for Iraq war

Washington Times ^ | Friday, April 26, 2002 | By Rowan Scarborough

[JohnHuang2]

The commander of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf has told senior Pentagon officers that a new war against Iraq would likely take five divisions and 200,000 troops.

Gen. Tommy Franks "wants to do a Desert Storm II," said one official, referring to the 550,000 troops deployed to the region in 1990-91 to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

[elfman2]

First you say "democracies" like Israel's are not worth increased oil prices, and then when it's pointed out how democratic they are, it's that no democracies are not worth expensive oil. My dog has more integrity in a debate than that.

I'm sure you'll be very persuasive when you grow up.

[Bravu]

My motto is "Is it good for Americans?"(sounds kinda familiar to you, doesn't it? Just change a few words around.. =D) So i ask myself: "Is getting into a war to protect a little "democratic state" in a desert good for Americans? Is fighting off Israels enemies for the sake of "defending democracies" good for Americans? Who benefits the most by having Americans engaged in a Middle East conflict? From my standpoint its certainly not your average American.

[elfman2]

" Who benefits the most by having Americans engaged in a Middle East conflict? From my standpoint its certainly not your average American."

Fair enough. If the horizon of what's best for Americans is 5-10 years, Israel's fall probably isn't that significant. But how energized do you think radical Muslim groups will be if Israel is virtually tuned inside out with a Palestinian majority. What political groups benefit within nations like Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan when the militants see a mechanism for victory?

What would happen with the spread of well protected, financed and energized terrorist groups through oppressed people around the world, especially after they see that we will not support our allies?

If we withdrawal around the world, other less benign people will fill the vacuum. As we back up here into doing "what's best for Americans", how long until we're figuring out how to defend against weapons of mass destruction staged on our southern border or maybe inside our border hidden by large groups of sympathizers?

This is a case where upholding the principle of not allowing aggression against a neighbor around the world is just as critical as not allowing it against the one down the block.