The Case For War Is Blown Apart

Independent UK ^ | 05-29-03

[Brian S]

By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City

29 May 2003

Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.

Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".

But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.

Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House.

Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer."

Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".

But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.

"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.

"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."

Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists.

"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."

He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."

Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made."

Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real."

But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations."

Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".

The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.

Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes."

Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."

The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."

The build-up to war: What they said

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003

[Alberta's Child]

Go read all the subsequent comments about that statement here on this thread. The situations you describe are not the same -- the U.S. did not have thousands of troops "staring nose-to-nose at the Russians" with the intention of invading the Soviet Union, and the U.S. had no intention of leaving those troops stationed around Iraq for 40 years, either.

Incidentally, nuclear arms are a whole different story because "proximity" to a threat like this doesn't mean much in an age when ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. put everyone on the planet in "proximity" to weapons of mass destruction.

[MattAMiller]

Well, Iraq said that they had destroyed all their WMD. IF they hadn't, then we should be able to show that.

And they should have been able to show that they had destroyed them. We haven't found evidence of that either BTW.

[Stultis]

My whole rationale here is that the U.S. not only must make a legitimate case about these facts (which we did, at least to my satisfaction), but that a very compelling case must be made that military action resulting in the overthrow of a government is the only means of dealing with the issue.

Can you give us some idea as to how many more 12 year periods of failure -- whilst spending tens of billions of American dollars annually on containment, and subjecting the forces implementing the containment policy to barracks bombings and other attacks -- and how many more sets of 16 consistently violated U.N. resolutions, would constitute for you a "compelling" case that forcable disarmament must be threatened, and the threat carried through if not responded to?

We'd be satisfied with a round figure, say to the nearest half a century.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

The case for war is that the Arabs needed the hell kicked out of them to get their damn attention. The ONLY thing they understand is raw power and the USE of it. Since Vietnam, with the MINOR exception of Gulf War I, we have been afraid to take real action. That includes Reagan tucking his tail and running after the attack on the Marines in Lebanon.

Every once in a while the big dog has to remind the rabble, both within his pack, and his neighbors, who's boss.

Get the hell over it and move out of the way or you'll get run down!

[Dr. Frank fan]

[not being nuked] If the U.S. was going to kill him in his bunker anyway, then what difference did it make to him?

Silly question. Do you want to be nuked or don't you? How did he know for a fact that "the U.S. was going to kill him in his bunker anyway"? Getting nuked is a little more certain, more difficult to survive. But if he had a strong enough bunker to hide in, he may have thought he could stall us, we'd suffer casualties, it would drag out, and then we weak-kneed Westerners would pull out and/or his pals in the UN would come to his rescue and tell us to pull out. This seems to have been how he thought he could survive the whole thing, based on how much attention he seemed to be paying to the UN process, bribing France/Germany/Russia/lefty Western politicians/public figures, etc. Right?

Isn't he supposed to be a madman of some sort? Oh, sorry -- I forgot. That was just part of the soccer-mom propaganda campaign.

My statements are not affected by whether Saddam Hussein is or is not a madman. They are based on my best interpretation of his actions: he seemed to actually think he could forestall a war in the UN and/or get us bogged down in a Mogadishu like "quagmire" and come out of it relatively unscathed (tens of thousands of dead Iraqi troops, or so; him, still in power). In any event, it is clear that he wanted to survive. A nuke would have been rather detrimental to his survival chances. Anyway, this is all hypothetical, surely you're not SERIOUSLY questioning the deterrence value of threatening to nuke someone?

Note: Clearly the U.S. had no intention of killing him in his bunker, as we are now starting to learn.

I am not starting to learn this. Clearly you need to "educate" me some more: what on earth are you talking about?

Where do you think Saddam Hussein is right now?

I have no way of knowing but if you want my wild hunch (and, you seem to) I suspect that he is dead, under the ground somewhere.

Clearly the U.S. must have offered him some kind of protection, or else he would have had no reason to refrain from using his WMDs.

I don't see this so "Clearly". This is based on such a large number of unsubstantiated assumptions (one of them being that Saddam Hussein is alive) that it's practically not worth discussing. This kind of wild speculation is more interesting in threads about cosmology, alternative universes and such.

[Alberta's Child]

Can you give us some idea as to how many more 12 year periods of failure -- whilst spending tens of billions of American dollars annually on containment, and subjecting the forces implementing the containment policy to barracks bombings and other attacks -- and how many more sets of 16 consistently violated U.N. resolutions, would constitute for you a "compelling" case that forcable disarmament must be threatened, and the threat carried through if not responded to?

Rather than answer the question directly with a haphazard response of, say, 50 years, let's see if we can go through a couple of basic conditions and see if an answer.

1. The United States has no business whatsoever enforcing U.N. resolutions, no matter how egregious the violations of these resolutions may seem. The U.S. will take military action when it sees fit to defend itself, regardless of whether the U.N. supports us. So scratch that one off the list. (It's worth noting, however, that for some reason, many conservatives who rightly bad-mouth the United Nations on a regular basis somehow consider "enforcement of U.N. sanctions" to be a legitimate rationale for war in this case.)

2. The last 12 years cannot be considered a "period of failure," since nobody seems to remember what the original goal was. This is precisely why nothing has happened there for 12 years -- the stance taken by the U.S. with regard to Iraq changed along these lines: a.) The U.S. is not concerned with long-running disputes between Arab nations (the infamous April Glaspie meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1990); b.) The U.S. must send thousands of U.S. troops to the to prevent Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia ("Operation Desert Shield"); c.) The U.S. military must now be used to enforce U.N. resolutions ordering the removal of Iraq from Kuwait ("Desert Shield" magically becomes "Desert Storm," though only a few of us began to wonder if we were getting our chains yanked); d.) Saddam Hussein is a madman -- the greatest threat to human existence since Adolph Hitler -- and therefore must be dealt with immediately; e.) Well, maybe he's not such a bad guy -- after all, how else could we explain why he was left there in 1991?; f.) On second thought (or third, actually), he's still a pretty bad guy but not bad enough that we have to do something about it. But we will actively work to encourage other groups in Iraq like the Shiites and the Kurds to rise up against him; g.) Oh, no. Those Shiites and Kurds actually thought we meant that last comment, and now they are rising up against Saddam Hussein! But rather than do anything about it when the Republican Guard violently quells those disturbances, let's establish a silly "no-fly zone" over northern and southern Iraq, and send U.N. weapons inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction.; h.) etc.; i.) etc.

(Note: Any possible connection between the first item -- "the U.S. is not concerned with disputes between Arab nations" -- and the last -- U.N. weapons inspections -- is strictly a coincidence. I can't imagine any other connection between the two.)

Now that we've made two basic points here, there are two answers that jump out at me. At your suggestion, I'll round them off to the nearest half-century.

First Answer: Zero.
This is the answer to the question when the U.S. is responding to a direct threat to our existence. The U.S. has no business screwing around with an enemy for even 12 months, let alone for a period of time that is twice as long as the second World War. 12 weeks may be a legitimate goal for any military action of this sort, though most countries wouldn't even last 12 hours against our military might.

Second Answer: One, and counting.
This is based on the precedent that was set the last time the United States launched a large-scale military campaign on behalf of the United Nations against a nation that didn't represent a direct threat to us. In the case of Korea, we're probably seeing the first case in the history of the world in which soldiers who are enforcing a cease-fire will be able to trade stories with their great-grandfathers who served as the first rotation enforcing that cease-fire.

[Alberta's Child]

How did he know for a fact that "the U.S. was going to kill him in his bunker anyway"?

After that disastrous meeting with April Glaspie in 1990, I can't imagine Saddam Hussein would be dumb enough to place any trust in the U.S. unless he held a very potent club over our head.

. . . he seemed to actually think he could forestall a war in the UN and/or get us bogged down in a Mogadishu like "quagmire" and come out of it relatively unscathed (tens of thousands of dead Iraqi troops, or so; him, still in power).

He obviously had no plans for a quagmire, since his military forces seem to have vanished from Iraq and he was effectively out of power about 30 minutes into the war.

. . . surely you're not SERIOUSLY questioning the deterrence value of threatening to nuke someone?

Threatening to nuke someone only has a deterrence value if his survival is at stake. If he perceives that he is going to die anyway, then there is no deterrance value. For evidence of this, see the blank page in any law enforcement manual under the sub-section titled "Deterring Someone Hell-Bent on Murder-Suicide."

Clearly you need to "educate" me some more: what on earth are you talking about?

There was a story posted here sometime this morning along these lines. Apparently, that initial "attack on Saddam's bunker" on Day 1 of the military campaign wasn't actually made on a bunker at all. In fact, nobody seems to know who or what the target was.

I have no way of knowing but if you want my wild hunch (and, you seem to) I suspect that he is dead, under the ground somewhere.

Maybe. I think it is just as likely that he is now the proud owner of a new 7-11 franchise in Paterson, New Jersey.

[kegler4]

Unfortunately I don't have time to read all the comments here so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said.

My real problem with this story and others is it appears that on occasion the U.S. and now Britain either lied, exaggerated, or used "proof" from a suspect source without checking it in an effort to justify attacking Iraq. This sounds more and more like Bill Clinton tactics. There's no excuse for this. If there's a strong case for taking an action, don't lie to us to justify it. If there isn't a strong case, don't take the action.

[Sparta]

He was left in power for a reason.

He was left in power to counteract Iranian designs on the Middle East. Also, there was not any Arab support for going on to Baghdad. We can discuss whether or not this was the right thing to do, but that's the reason why Saddam was left in power after Gulf War I.

[Stone Mountain]

The USA today article claims that the shipments were legal under policies of the Commerce Department and aproved by the CDC.

I never said they weren't legal. I just said that they were supplied by the US.

[Alberta's Child]

Interesting little item for those of you who don't like my "blind cynicism" when it comes to what my government tells me.

Latest on the Scott Speicher story . . .

[Sparta]

However, there was no satisfactory resolution to the Al-Ani-Mohammed Atta meeting of April 2001, which supposedly took place in Praha. I am convinced that it took place, but the story was pooh-poohed by people in the State Department who wanted to forstall the war. Czech Intelligence never backed off its claim that Atta was observed meeting with Colonel Al-Ani of the Mukhabarat at Praha Airport.

My belief in Iraqi involvement in the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11 formed the nucleus for my support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I, personally, can care less whether or not Saddam has or had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Alberta's Child]

My real problem with this story and others is it appears that on occasion the U.S. and now Britain either lied, exaggerated, or used "proof" from a suspect source without checking it in an effort to justify attacking Iraq. This sounds more and more like Bill Clinton tactics.

Actually, this tactic was used with great success in 1990 before Gulf War I. Remember those stories of Iraqi soldiers removing the newborn babies from the incubators in the Kuwaiti hospital? The stories were later revealed to be utter bullsh!t, and the woman who gave this testimony to Congress turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. or something like that.

And here's the best angle to this story: the woman who gave that testimony was prepped by an adviser at a major PR firm. The adviser's name was Victoria Clarke -- yes, current Assistant Secretary of Defense Victoria Clarke!

[Dr. Frank fan]

[How did he know for a fact that "the U.S. was going to kill him in his bunker anyway"?] After that disastrous meeting with April Glaspie in 1990, I can't imagine Saddam Hussein would be dumb enough to place any trust in the U.S. unless he held a very potent club over our head.

What you can or can not imagine has no bearing on any real-world situation. In any event, this is not about whether Saddam would "trust" the U.S., it's about whether he would prefer being nuked immediately to taking his chances in a bunker against conventional attacks. To review: (1) you're trying to convince me (as I recall the thread of this dumb exchange) that to threaten nukes against Saddam could not possibly deter him from using WMDs against us, because all things considered he really wouldn't mind getting nuked, or something. At the same time, (2) it's not clear, then, just exactly how it is you think we deterred Saddam from using WMDs, if indeed we did, in 1991. And let's remember, (3) your whole purpose for trying to convince me that threat-of-nuke is no deterrent for Saddam is because you think we gave him some appealing carrot for not WMD'ing our troops, but (4) you have no basis whatsoever for saying this and (5) it's not exactly clear what you think this carrot could have been.

Does that about sum it up? Do you really want to continue down this road, or do you see how silly this is starting to sound?

[. . . he seemed to actually think he could forestall a war in the UN and/or get us bogged down in a Mogadishu like "quagmire" and come out of it relatively unscathed (tens of thousands of dead Iraqi troops, or so; him, still in power).] He obviously had no plans for a quagmire,

That is simply untrue, apparently you were asleep for the last three months. Quagmire (and diplomacy) was basically his only "plan", he wanted Baghdad to be like Stalingrad (the "five-ringed" defense of Baghdad, suicide attacks, having his troops view Blackhawk Down and Enemy at the Gates in preparation, etc.)

He obviously had no plans for a quagmire, since his military forces seem to have vanished from Iraq

Uh, the fact that many of his forces chickened out and went home doesn't prove that he didn't want them to stand and fight and give their lives for a "quagmire". Sheesh, you realize how dumb that reasoning sounds, right? You seem to make no distinction between "Saddam" and "Saddam's army"... if "Saddam's army" fails to do something, it just proves that Saddam never intended to do it in the first place, because, uh... Saddam's army is just an arm of Saddam and.. they completely obey him to their death..? But that flies in the face of facts. We know that much of his army stood down and went home.

That doesn't mean this is what Saddam wanted!! The L.A. Lakers lost in the playoffs. Does that prove that Phil Jackson wanted to lose or never had a plan for winning??

Threatening to nuke someone only has a deterrence value if his survival is at stake. If he perceives that he is going to die anyway, then there is no deterrance value.

Slight amendment: if he perceives that he is going to die anyway in the same amount of time.

If I gave you a choice of killing you now or waiting a week, which would you choose? (hint: if you had an extra week, you could run, or hide, or kill me, or get help, or something)

And by the way, what on earth makes you think that he "perceive[d] that he is going to die anyway"? His every action was consistent with a belief that he would be able to survive, somehow.

For evidence of this, see the blank page in any law enforcement manual under the sub-section titled "Deterring Someone Hell-Bent on Murder-Suicide."

Irrelevant unless you can prove that Saddam was "Hell-Bent on Murder-Suicide."

[how we had no intention of killing Saddam] There was a story posted here sometime this morning along these lines.

Ohhhh I see well that explains it all then. Yessir, if there was a "story" (from where? Debka?) posted here, then it must be true. (rolls eyes)

Apparently, that initial "attack on Saddam's bunker" on Day 1 of the military campaign wasn't actually made on a bunker at all. In fact, nobody seems to know who or what the target was.

So then what are you talking about? I thought you were going to explain how you knew that we had no intention of killing Saddam. Yet here you are talking about whether a place we bombed the hell out of was a "bunker" or some other kind of construction. Strange.

[have no way of knowing but if you want my wild hunch (and, you seem to) I suspect that he is dead, under the ground somewhere.] Maybe. I think it is just as likely that he is now the proud owner of a new 7-11 franchise in Paterson, New Jersey.

I'll keep that in mind. What you, personally, think to be likely or unlikely is oh-so-important to me. In fact I'm making a note of it in my diary and I'll be telling all my friends. Toodles,

[Dr. Frank fan]

Interesting little item for those of you who don't like my "blind cynicism" when it comes to what my government tells me. Latest on the Scott Speicher story . . .

For what it's worth (not much),

1. It's not your "cynicism" I have been having a problem with on this thread. Rather, it has been various of your statements which have been illogical, made wild unsubstantiated claims, and/or disingenuously changed points (hoping no one would notice) which you had tried to make earlier. I'm all for cynicism when viewing government actions, if that's all you're saying. Still supported this Iraq war, still don't care about "finding WMDs" (apart from the need to "get them off the street", if they're out there, of course...)

2. I have no idea why you linked the thread about Scott Speicher to me. Namely, I don't know what you think it illustrates, if anything, that relates to something else you've been saying on this thread. It's an interesting story and all, but... I mean... what about it?

[Stultis]

It was difficult to detect a response in your message, amidst the cynicism and complaints about the extengencies of statecraft.

c.) The U.S. military must now be used to enforce U.N. resolutions ordering the removal of Iraq from Kuwait ("Desert Shield" magically becomes "Desert Storm," though only a few of us began to wonder if we were getting our chains yanked)

That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way is to say that we were responding to the leader of a rouge state with an explicitly stated intent to draw as much of the Arab world as possible into a facistic and militaristic dictatorship, who already controlled (with Kuwait) nearly a quarter of the World's oil supply, and was imminently planning to control half (with Saudi Arabia).

Given the economic and strategic importance of oil, this was hardly a gratuitous interference in "disputes between Arab nations." But, hey, we could follow your prescriptions. We could wait for a palpably present and active threat to fully materialize. Then we could have a nice old-fashioned World War, with tens (or hundreds) of millions of dead, just like our grandparents did. Think of all the wonderful movies and posters our own grandchildren (assuming we have them) will be able to enjoy!

[Luis Gonzalez]

In 1991 Saddam Hussein signed an agreement in order to stop the Allied Forces from marching into Bahgdad, and overthrowing his government, at the time of the signing of the document, Iraq had WMD's as well as chemical and biological weapons, their existence a matter if record.

Per the letter of the 1991 cease fire, Saddam had a specific period of time to disarm, and discard all WMD's, twelve years later, he failed to demonstrate that he had kept to the accords of the 1991 cease-fire for twelve consecutive years.

Tired of waiting around for Saddam to turn in the proper pa[perwork to the UN, we went in to take a look ourselves.

We're still doing it.

Saddam didn't like the notion of our coming to take a look-see, and ordered his troops to stop us. These troops have been rendered useless, and Saddam, exhibiting all the characteristics of a truly poor host, is nowhere to be seen.

Hope that helped.

[ought-six]

"Incidentally, nuclear arms are a whole different story because "proximity" to a threat like this doesn't mean much in an age when ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. put everyone on the planet in "proximity" to weapons of mass destruction."

You've obviously never served in the military. Low-yield tactical nukes were very common (no need for ballistic missiles for those, as they can be fired by such mundane delivery systems as howitzers). Also, the Russians had chemical weapons in Berlin (as did we up until the 1980s).

[Burkeman1]

Sadaam was left in power after the first Gulf War because of Iran. It became very clear- very fast to George Bush I that the Shiites were being infiltrated by Iranians and were looking to Iran for guidance and support. When GWI saw this he figured Sadaam was the lessor of two evils. Further- the large coalition he put together to fight the first gulf war would have collpased if we did more than oust Sadaam from Kuwait. When poeple say GWI "blew it" during the first gulf war by not going to Baghdad they don't understand that he couldn't go to Baghdad and never had any intention of doing so.

And all of this should disturb us in light of of our present occupation of Iraq. GWI's advisors were not at all excited about this war though they only expressed mild concerns. The threat of Shia loyality to Iran is very real. That it seems to have caught Bush II off guard is surreal and depressing.

Now we have the pathetic spectacle of Rumsfeld issuing "guidelines" for building a democratic state (and comparing Iraq to revolutionary America!) in Iraq while threating Iran about broadcasting radio propaganda into Iraq? What country used to complain about radio broadcasts into their territory? Was it the Soviets? If our plans for remaking Iraq into a democrtic state are "threatened" by free speech and some Radio broadcasts from Iran then it has no chance of success and we should leave now.

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. was caught off-guard on this one, in terms of the aftermath of the war itself. Nobody expected the consensus of the Iraqi people to be as follows:

"Thanks for the help, Yankees. Now turn the lights back on and get the f#ck out of here while we go about creating an Islamic State of Southern Iraq, a Kurdish State of Northern Iraq, a Ba'athist State of Baghdad, etc."

There was a retired general who raised some concerns early on that "keeping the peace" would require several hundred thousand troops, but these concerns were dismissed out of hand by no less a military genius than Paul Wolfowitz (sarcasm /off/), who insisted that most U.S. troops would be on their way home by now. Instead, 150,000 troops are going to remain, and they will be supplemented by another 20,000 U.S. troops and 20,000 foreign peacekeepers.