> What do you make of reports like that appended below that say that a third
> plan is now afoot, relying on 150,000 or more US troops and scheduled for
> the Fall or later? Zinni, in the course of scoffing at Kurds and the INC,
> specifically gave that as the number of troops he thought would be
> necessary to topple Saddam, implying it would be possible if he had them.
> And 6-8 months seems like reasonable time to amass them. Do you think
> there is any reason we should consider this plan as being as inherently
> logistically fanciful as the two you discussed? Or could it possibly
> represent the debouching of what has been a long-cherished fantasy into a
> new reality -- and one we perhaps should take seriously?
I thought the Guardian piece was vague on details, and sort of garbled. Besides, it also includes this line: "However, it may be that the actual force used will be less numerous, relying more on covert and special forces operations."
I think the signals are pretty clear that the administration has given up on the INC. But that doesn't mean the number of US forces deployed will be zero.
Seth