TIME: Getting the Lowdown on Iraq - Never Enough Troops

[TacticalPeek]

Getting the Lowdown on Iraq
By SALLY B. DONNELLY

Posted Monday, Nov. 21, 2005
If the Repulblican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"--the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq.

"We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat.

snip

But the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out. The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower--rather than of protective armor or signal jammers--posed one of the biggest obstacles in dealing with roadside bombs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

more
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html



Fire Rummy and the other lying bastards!

:grr:

[bemildred]

1. It was a stupid and illegal idea to begin with, never mind how many troops

[NMDemDist2]

2. they'd love more boots, but there isn't any to send

the cupboard is empty

[AndyTiedye]

3. I Think I Feel a DRAFT

[pushycat]

4. WHAT TOOK WARNER SO LONG? We've heard this since

day 1, from Shinseki, Whit, and others in the military.

Bush let Rumsfeld run this war and made sure Warner and others stayed out of his way. Nice, while our guys are on the front line.

Warner is one weak SOB


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-02-white-usat_x.htm

[teryang]

5. More troops equals more casualties

The war is in large part about defense contractor profits. More casualties will only aggravate the surging opposition to the war.

Everyone knew there weren't enough troops from the beginning. Rumsfeldt wanted to preserve increased budget dollars for defense contractors. This is what army lite waa all about.

We have a bloated cold war budget based upon a colonial war expedition against a country that has been battered since 1991. It's a slight of hand and always has been. Our regular armed forces are smaller than they have ever been since Vietnam. Yet the budget is at peak of the Vietnam war levels.

[pushycat]

6. Treachery against our treasury. Damn the lazy congress and

anyone who profits from this 'struggle'. Rumsfeld grabs at runaway executive power by hiding behind Bush.

Is he a patriot or is he working to take US down? So far, the results point to the latter. He is a twisted one whose actions and policy have been disastrous to our military, economy, industry, law enforcement, foreign relations, national security, judiciary, trade.

You name it - not ONE positive thing to say for 5 damn years.


Bush stands in front of soldiers and shouts 'we will not back down, we will not....' yadayadayada yuck