f numbers are not the only factors conducive either to military victory or to successful occupation, the question becomes one of how our present forces are being used. Here a general rule seems inescapable: defeating—even humiliating—an enemy decisively and then immediately establishing zero tolerance for the formation of militias and insurrectionists is a wiser strategy than stationing a vast, and often static occupation force over an opponent who does not believe he was defeated in the first place.
=ZERO TOLERANCE
RETREAT FROM FALLUJAH emboldened the enemy and his latest beheading tactics.
We need 50000 less troops and 50 thousand more bombs.
Based on recent events in Fallujah and elsewhere, I think someone has gotten that message. How many so called "safe houses" (with Weddings in progress one supposes) have gone "boom" in the last couple of weeks? Several.
What we need is for the new Iraqi government to follow through on their promise to cut off hands and cut off heads. If they try to play the PC game too, the kingdom will surely be lost.
Given that the US military is undergoing its "transformation" during combat, as opposed to training, the "tooth to tail" ratio is being changed as well..and the tail is getting bigger, and longer..thus, the emphasis of total troop strength as a number per se, in and of itself, is misleading..I recall that something like 50% of USA KIA in the war, combat deaths, were behind the front, in supply convoys....