February 25, 2003
The Army's top general said Tuesday a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq could total several hundred thousand soldiers.
Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he said any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with "ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."
February 27, 2003
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops.
May 11, 2003
Security in Baghdad . . . is deteriorating. Gunfire is heard more often than it was two weeks ago, thieves drag drivers from their cars in broad daylight, and looters continue to steal whatever is left from public buildings in full view of passers by.
US officials say they cannot fully control the situation. With less than 150,000 troops in Iraq, a country the size of California, "there are some areas that we don't have totally covered," said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of US ground forces, last week.
"War is too important to be left to the generals."
Clemenceau
"War is to important to be left to the think tank nitwits"
Billmon
Update 5-12: "Imagine spreading 150,000 soldiers in the state of California and then ask yourself could you secure all of California all the time with 150,000 soldiers," McKiernan told reporters last week. "The answer is no. So we're focused on certain areas, on certain transportation networks we need to make sure are open."
Are Wolfowitz and Co. going to give McKiernan the bum's rush, too?
The truth is they don't care. Here's what Bob Novak wrote after Rumsfeld fired the Sec. of the Army last week:
"That clears the board for Rumsfeld to pick generals who will not oppose reducing Army strength by the equivalent of two combat divisions."
So Rumsfeld's going to cut an army that's stretched thin already. What's the deal? Bob Woodward reported that at the beginning of the Afghan war, Bush's advisers were getting nervous about the war plan and the small # of troops in the country. Bush told them not to worry:
"Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum."
"Look, our strategy is to create chaos, to create a vacuum."
Bush is a walking vacuum.
A increase of force should not be a problem. All the "support our troops" guys surely will go over to Iraq and help the troops.
It's the lean manufacturing approach to warfare. You ramp up just enough production to meet current market demand.
It's a dream concept for the hardened boardroom warrior. Throw in a touch of greenmail for recalcitrant allies, get a good M&A team on retainer, game it out in some nutcase think tank, privatise support functions for efficiency (DynCorp, Wackenhut, KRB), leverage your economy to pay for it . . .Shades of "Barbarians at the Gates", no?
Bechtel has a lot of expertise (heh) in cleaning up after the nuclear disasters they (and others) create. Let's call it a cradle to grave business opportunity for all concerned.
There's a lot of money to be made in turmoil. As a bonus, sociopathic philosophies get a field test. Maybe they'll reorganize Iraqi society on the Amway model. Operation Infinite Upline?
The US should combine the War on Drugs with the War on Iraqi Reconstruction
"When (Clemenceau) said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for stategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."
--Gen. Jack D. Ripper.
Maybe I should start a draft Jack Ripper web site?
I'd love to see this question added to a campaign push poll:
Q: Jack Ripper promises to purify our precious bodily fluids? How does that make you feel about Gen. Ripper's candidacy?
A.) More favorable
B.) Less favorable
C.) I know this is a trick question. Gen. Ripper is a character in a '60s movie.
What kind of response do you think they'd get?
That's too simple. You have to write the question with a clear bias like like Wolf Blitzer does:
"Do you agree with Gen. Ripper that our precious bodily fluids need protection?"
A: Yes
B: No
C: I'm a Communist
You have to write the question with a clear bias like like Wolf Blitzer does:
More like:
Q: The Democrats want to pollute our precious bodily fluids. Do you agree with decorated war hero Jack D. Ripper that the Democrats are all filthy communists?
A.) Yes -- They repulse and disgust me.
B.) Yes -- Kill them all.
Well, yeah! There you go. All you have to do now is put up some fake bar charts next to an "action" picture of yourself (with or without "action" vest) and you're ready for prime time. Tomorrow's question:
"How far should Attorney General Ashcroft go to protect us from polluted Democrats?"
A: Far
B: Farther
C: As far as possible, but make it painful and slow.
"Tonight at 11: Democrats eat little Christian babies. Channel 5's I-Team takes you behind the scenes for a look at their perverted rituals."
"Now stay tuned for these messages from our sponors."
the lack of troops could be part of Rummy's plan to expand the war. Read it; interesting.
As if we needed more proof that Paul Wolfowitz is a complete and utter moron. These neocons are like a whole gaggle of boys in plastic bubbles. It must be nice to live so detached from reality.