Military Cannot Increase Troop Levels

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:36 pm

Dec. 8, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- Whatever its ultimate fate, the Iraq Study Group report released Wednesday should have destroyed the spurious notion that flooding Iraq with more U.S. troops might win the war. As the report makes clear, a major influx of U.S. combat brigades into Iraq is somewhere between totally unrealistic and completely impossible.

In interviews with Salon, experts who served on the study group's "working groups" explained why: The military is running out of troops and equipment. The cold, hard facts about military readiness and a 1.4 million-strong active-duty force rule out a big increase in the size of the U.S. footprint in Iraq. "We don't have enough is the short answer," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University who served on the military and security working group of the bipartisan commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. Advocating a big increase in troop levels now is just political theater, Hoffman argued. "This is the beginning of the who-lost-Iraq debate," he explained. "No one wants to be a charter member of the club."

Even though the new report articulates a dark picture of U.S. readiness, some politicians, including leading Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, continue to argue that a significant increase in troops in Iraq is needed to save the country from sinking into the abyss.

Some advisors to the study group expressed considerable frustration that the White House never lifted a finger to prevent the predictable degradation in the readiness of U.S. ground forces, now painfully apparent.

Read the rest here.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:03 pm

I think that was Hillary's response to the suggestion of sending more troops. Of course, the "liberal" element trashed her for not giving her opinion as to whether or not sending more troops would work. Not that it would work, although it probably would have if we'd gone in with more troops - lots more troops, like the close to 500K the generals originally recommended - and preserved the infrastructure and civil services, but the question is moot and trying to force somebody into "what ifs" is equally moot.