How much higher would make a difference? At this point, close to 50,000 to 100,000 extra troops to halt the centrifugal force of societal disintegration in Iraq. Does the Weekly Standard seriously believe that is either politically or militarily possible with the urgency necessary?
I'm not sure that anyone knows what the right amount is. The theoretically correct amount probably varies from time-to-time, which only makes calibration that much more difficult.
Because they are not politically possible doesn't change the analysis of whether they are needed or might be beneficial.
Two other observations. Does draw down or "re-deploy" mean forever? That seems like an odd prescription, since any breakdown in the situation is going to come up at the U.N. subsequently, and the US will be under pressure to 'do something'. In other words, thinking about the troops' impact on Baghdad now may ignore long-term needs that may still arise for another division or two or three.
Last, do they all have to be U.S. troops? I asked this a long time ago when Operation Lightning was launched ... how is it that so many can just stand aside so easily?
By the way, I'm not in any position to assess "denial", but Andrew should recognize that there will always be a faction that supports continuous military engagement. It's a strong element in Israeli politics, for instance, perhaps the most direct parallel. I can't see any reason it won't continue here too.
sullylink
