What would having more troops have done? Just more targets for pissed off out of power terrorist Sunni's. Make the case that it would have made a difference.
More troops?! I thought we didn't have enough body armor for the ones we sent in?
"What would having more troops have done? Just more targets for pissed off out of power terrorist Sunni's. Make the case that it would have made a difference."
One of the oldest axioms of war is that once you have taken ground you must be able to secure it or it quickly becomes contested again. The only way to secure that ground once it's taken, is to put armed men on it. Not tanks. Not helicopters. Not advanced tactical fighters that no country on earth can shoot down. Armed MEN. Infantry.
If there is not enough infantry to do the job (adequately secure what has been taken), the enemy quickly tries to take it back. The enemy, in this case, is what Rumsfeld calls "dead-enders" -- i.e. "insurgents" and terrorists. So, without enough troops to secure Iraq (basiclaly the concept of a "cop on every corner"), we wind up with Najaf, Fallujah (twice), and a host of IED's and ambushes.
Why? Because there is obviously holes in the "security plan" that allows the "dead-enders" to take advantage of those times the troops (Americans or Iraqis) aren't around or around in sufficient nymbers to keep close watch, in order to gather, plan, plot and plant roadside bombs, and to smuggle weapons into and all across the country.
SO, what happens? We don't have enough troops, so the US military and civilian government folks have to do certain things they'd rather not: they have to negotiate with slugs like Al-Sadr, for example, giving him legitimacy, so that they don't have to fight a full-fledged battle for Fallujah. They then have to flatten Fallujah AGAIN, in order to pacify it -- they couldn't finish the job the first time, or at least quickly enough to avoid the public relations nightmare of a prolonged seige. They have to bear with an infant Iraqi government that can't decide where to eat lunch on any given day,let alone get it together and form a government.
A larger overall US presance in Iraq solves three problems:
1. Better security because now there are more armed men on the street, looking for the IED planters, interacting with and befriending the locals, they can act as an impromptu police force, when necessary. Security increases with more boots on the ground.
2. The Iraqi army and police forces will not be cobbled-together, spit-and-piano-wire constructs of barely qualified and vetted men quickly put into a uniform to mollify American sensibilities. With US troops in large numbers providing security, it gives time to create a better quality Iraqi army and national police, where unreliables and those with terror ties can be weeded out.
3. A larger US ground presance in Iraq gives Iran something to think about. Right now, all we can do is bomb the Iranians (should it come to that) but not enter their country and impose our will. The mullahs and Admini-moron (whatever his name is) can survive the bombing; they couldn't survive an armed American presance in Tehran.
But, we don't have the troops, do we? Reason why; infantry is not "sexy" enough when compared to the high tech options available, both to the generals and the recruits. If given a choice, the PlayStation generation would rather play at war (especially the pushbutton kind)than actually fight one. President Clinton (and before him Bush I) would rather cut the size of the force, and the generals who make those decisions cut the least "sexy" and least lucrative (for them -- they work for the contractors after they "retire") part of the armed forces: the grunts. The generals would rather buy 400 F-22's we don't need (but which ensures their future employment and votes for congresscritters), instead of plowing that money into the troops (like making sure our troops have adequate body armor, bullets not manufactured in Israel, and for God's sake, moist towelettes to clean the dust off after a day's patrol. It makes me absolutely sick that our troops write home begging for "creature comforts" we take for granted: phone cards, toilet paper, Gatorade and Oreos).
We need to rebuild that infantry force and the tradition that goes with it. Had it been there in the spring of 2003, we wouldn't be talking about generals and defense secretaries pointing fingers at each other and all these recriminations. We'd be talking about a democratic, Capitalist Iraq, our trusted Ally.