quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I was in the car with my mom, she listens to Air America, and the Randy Rhodes show (spelling on her name, I am not a great fan of hers). She was talking about a formula that military people have known for an extremely long time. The formula for the amount of troops needed to peacefully occupy a country are 1 troop to every 40 individuals. If we had followed this formula there would have been at least 125k troops needed for the city of Baghdad alone, 250k-275k for the entire country. Rummy thought that new technologies would reduce the necessary amount of troops on the ground to get the job done, he experimented as if this was some fortune 500 investment and not a military occupation of an unfriendly country.

It was not bad enough that he underestimated going in, he stubbornly refused to admit that the military folks knew better than he did.  Part of the sad thing is that any country that would have been occupied in the manner that this one was would have ended the same way most likely, because the formula is right on. Instead of looking at how we screwed it up, the Iraqis are thought of as uncivilized and unable to govern themselves... truly sickening

quote:

When NATO forces went into Kosovo in 1999, they followed the same proven formula: 50,000 troops for a population of 2 million, one soldier for every 40 inhabitants. A recent Rand Corp. study by military analyst James Quinlivan concluded that the bare minimum ratio to provide security for the inhabitants of an occupied territory, let alone deal with an active insurgency, is one to 50.

In Iraq today, coalition forces number about 160,000, or one for every 160 Iraqis. (Even adding in an estimated 20,000 civilian security contractors working in Iraq, that still translates to one for every 140 Iraqis.) In response to the unremitting attacks and continuing instability, U.S. commanders have now canceled plans to cut troop strength by some 20,000 this year. It is a significant about-face, and one that has unquestionably put a severe strain on both regular and reserve units whose deployments have been extended well beyond what they had originally been told

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

The reason is that we do not have the troops. There has been talk of a draft for a few years now, how to get it done without commiting political suicide.

We have a significant military presence in over 100 countries, and we are told that they are for defense. They are.

They are for the defense of a government that we have bought and paid for. And installed. Saddam was the leader of such a government, but he fell out of favor. So the people of Iraq suffer. They suffered when we helped him, they sufferd when we helped him out of there.

If we would have left Iraq alone in the firast place, there would be no terrorism. Terrorism is simply acts of war by people who see and believe they are at war. Perhaps it was the bombs that made them think this.

We cannot stop supporting these puppet governments, the people would have a revolution and we would lose that piece. That is how they think, like a piece, or more like a country, but in a game of risk. Whenever they touch the US economy they think of it as a game of Monopoly. Ever play Risk ? Hell of a game, it really is.

Ever see those movies where they are in a top level military planning meeting and they have the map and the pieces on the board for their map ?, err board ? Those people are just following orders. And then giving them.

Earned their position yes, great military mind yes. The politicians who make them do it, your call. I say the politicians' kids should go first.

Enough.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

Can you say or spell: DRAFT?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

IF we have needed more troops in Iraq for a while, and all indications seem to suggest that:
Why have we waited MONTHS to send more troops over there?  I have thought about this for
a long time.  All I can think of, it must be political.  Anyone can see that country has been in a
civil war for months.  Could it have been due to the elections?  I did not support this "invasion"/war
from day 1, in fact I protested it twice.   But I do support our troops that are in harms way.
IF  we are going to fight, we need to go all out.  I don't understand the logic or the thinking here.
IF we have needed more troops over there for months, as all indications show, why have we waited
months to do this?  I feel so sorry for those fighting over there, what must they be thinking?
Can anyone tell me what the logic is here?  Is the point to win with as few troops as necessary?
What the hell is going on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

Julia? do you know the main reason I want a draft?
It will end all of this quickly.
The people in the streets ended the war in Vietnam.
Get my drift?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

When the troubles were at their height in Northern Ireland many people, non in power tho',  called for total withdrawal and let the Irish fight themselves to a standstill if needs be. The current calm there has been achieved by giving away almost everything to one side,the Republicans. However the underlying weakness of the Loyalists, pro Brit , may have something to do with the lack of military response I dont know.