Even with the surge, we'll be well short of the number of troops we need:

• Petraeus and his co-authors discussed this strategy at great length in the Army's counterinsurgency field manual. One point they made is that it requires a lot of manpower—at minimum, 20 combat troops for every 1,000 people in the area's population. Baghdad has about 6 million people; so clearing, holding, and building it will require about 120,000 combat troops.
  
  Right now, the United States has about 70,000 combat troops in all of Iraq (another 60,000 or so are support troops or headquarters personnel). Even an extra 20,000 would leave the force well short of the minimum required—and that's with every soldier and Marine in Iraq moved to Baghdad. Iraqi security forces would have to make up the deficit.

Kaplan in another article in Slate

eta: Of course, when you look at where Bush got the numbers he's working with, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (Note: Napoleon didn't win in the end, either.)

500,000 Troops or Quit
 

The pentagon said for over 10 years you'd need about half a million troops to pacify Iraq. The White House should put that many troops into Iraq or get the hell out.

This may be true -- and I think McCain is concerned about that. But -- per the WaPo article, McCain says he directly asked Lt. Gen Petraeus that question, and Petraeus said that he thought he could get the job done with the 20K more troops planned.

So, McCain sez, "Who am I to try to micromanage this? I'm not going over there to command." We'll see.

S_A_M

How much force does it take to keep a rock balanced at the top of a steep hill when (say) someone is pushing it towards you?

When the rock is rolling down that steep hill, with that dude running behind it and pushing it, how much force does it take to (a) stop it? (b) return it to the top of the hill?

Would the amount of force required be more, less, or the same in the second circumstance than in the first?

S_A_M

P.S. Point being, that the fact that more troops could have made things better in 2003-04 doesn't necessarily mean that 20K more troops will make it better in 2007.

That should be the bottom line for everyone involved. He is the new commander and he says he needs twenty thousand. Why second guess him?

The worry is that the answer comes fromt he politicians, who have a vested interest, and not from him.

Pre-Bush 43 the pentagon said 500,000 troops were necessary to control Iraq.

Post-Bush 43, the pentagon says 170,000 are necessary in Iraq.

Why the difference? The pentagon is full of careerist wimps that won't tell the truth because they're afraid of getting fired.

If he said that was all he needed, that's different. But says he's written that he needs a lot more, and he's now putting on the brave face of saying he can use the men -- well, if I have to connect the dots for you, you just don't want to see where they're leading.

The more fundamental problem is that there aren't many more troops to send, unless you really shake things up somehow.

Shouldn't we send him as many troops as we can? What do you suggest we do?

If you could have reinforced Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines in late 1941, would you have done so?

In brief, we need to be realistic about how to make the best of a bad situation. We need to stop fighting the war for the Iraqi government, such as it is, because we are getting in the way of political reconciliation.

500,000 Troops or Out
 

There are a lot of experts who wanted 500,000 troops in Iraq. If Bush thinks victory in Iraq is important, he should give an honest speeach saying we need to reinstate the draft and send 500,000 troops to Iraq. Or we need to get out. Increasing or decreasing the number of troops by 20,000 does nothing to change the fundamental problem that the current number of troops is less than a third of what's necessary.


Rand Study: http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...03/burden.html

Bremer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10777239/

Wesley Clark:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070107...o_070107031045

Defense Science Board:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...or_state_dept/

Cato Institute:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...l/16164905.htm

500,000 Troops or Out
 

I don't know about the exact number, but in general, I agree. The "surge" is nothing but a PR campaign.

Hey! Nothing is working, so let's throw money at the problem!
 

So you want to send as many people as possible even if it is not enough to do the job?

Are you looking to create the best possible example of the limits of American power for the whole world to see? To have the grandest possible loss? One that only occurs after we drag this out, incur the maximum loss of life, and see all other coalition members depart?

I know it is tempting to see a problem and say, hey, let's just throw a lot of money at it, and a whole bunch of people, and see if we can fix it. But that's really just a way to waste a lot of money and see a lot of people die.

500,000 Troops or Out
 

Classic anti-insurgency warfare calls for a ratio of 20 solders per 1000 population. That's where the 500,000 number comes from. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld thought they were smarter than a hundred years of military tactics. The Iraq war has proven them wrong. And will continue to do so.

2. The punks on the left have no respect for the military or its leaders.