the mil wanted 500k to invade. early on, Rummy etc wanted that 100+k mentioned in this Nation article. The mil got twice that. And the 200k _was_ what more moderate hawks like Kenneth Pollack were advocating as a realistic force--assuming an Iraqi mil that fought back hard but was worn down from sanctions and lack of hardware. That number was also assuming significant battles in the south and in Baghdad, as well as the use of the Iraqi military's most formidable skills: excellent infosec defenses/operational security, the ability to move quickly, and commitment to the
kelley
p.s., the mil is fighting the PNAC inspired plans for a new, decentralized, just-in-time, flexible production mil up to fighting the war on terrism [tm]. the war party faction thinks that the old lumbering .mil sucks up too much money and is incapable of deploying quickly and is run by too many equivalents of fat, bloated "middle managers". they're talking jacking up the .mil budget to something like 4% of the GDP, IIRC. They want to redeploy troops out of Europe and into the ME and Asia. see also, resentments over the use of CIA leadership in Afghanistan and the CIA's 'appropriation' of spec ops talent (Delta force, etc.) because it doesn't have any of its own that are competent.
At 09:35 AM 4/3/03 -0800, Gregory Geboski wrote:
> That this current crop of generals, like any other crop, disagrees over
> military strategy, and engages in self-serving political positioning? Big deal.