Further, to increase the troops substantially would be to increase the strains on the US military, the national guard and their families. On the other hand, instituting a draft - in addition to the logistical changes it would require to the current military - would probably give more than enough cannon fodder to send over to Iraq (and possibly enough to send into Iran and Syria).
Increasing troop levels was always the panacea of the McNamera clique in the Vietnam era and it never worked then. It now appears to be the panacea for centrists and liberal apologists for the current war, and likely will not work now either. SR
-------------- Original message -------------- From: "B.K. DeLong" <bkdelong at pobox.com>
>
> It seems to me that the more toops we have, the less of our troops
> will die because there will be more people to catch IEDs, find
> insurgents, save injured troops etc.
>
> Totally contrary to what my liberal self was saying a few months back.
>
> Am I crazy?
>
> On 12/6/06, Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> >
> > Iraq: Top Dem Wants More Troops
> > As the debate over Iraq intensifies, leading Democrat Silvestre Reyes
> > is calling for the deployment of more U.S. troops.
> > WEB EXCLUSIVE
> > By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
> > Newsweek
> >
> > Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep.
> > Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence
> > Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S.
> > troops as part of a stepped up effort to "dismantle the militias."
> >
> > The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war
> > and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President
> > Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited
> > last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new
> > head of the intelligence panel.
> >
> > But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly
> > distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have
> > called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming
> > on the eve of tomorrow's recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-
> > Hamilton commission, Reyes's comments were immediately cited by some
> > Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S.
> > policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
> >
> > "We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those
> > militias, those private armies," Reyes said. "We have to consider the
> > need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias
> > and stabilize Iraq ... We certainly can't leave Iraq and run the risk
> > that it becomes [like] Afghanistan" was before the 2001 invasion by
> > the United States.
> >
> > Reyes also stressed that there needed to be greater "political
> > accountability" demanded of the Iraqi government. But on the core
> > issue of the U.S. commitment, Reyes?a Vietnam War veteran who
> > partially lost his hearing in that conflict?even compared his
> > position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch
> > supporter of the Iraq war. Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an
> > increase in U.S. troop strength. When asked how many additional
> > troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: "I would say
> > 20,000 to 30,000?for the specific purpose of making sure those
> > militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
> >
> > When a reporter suggested that was not a position that was likely to
> > be popular with many House Democrats, Reyes replied: "Well again, I
> > differ in that I don't want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We
> > could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas,
> > for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have
> > a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East."
> >
> > Reyes added that he was "very clear" about his position to Pelosi
> > when she chose him over two rivals?Rep. Jane Harman of California and
> > Rep. Alcee Hastings?to head the critical intelligence post. One
> > widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported
> > the war, didn't get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate
> > wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the
> > Bush White House?which Reyes promises to be on other issues like
> > domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
> >
> > But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes
> > replied: "What I said was, we can't afford to leave there. And
> > anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is
> > being dishonest ... We're all interested in getting out of Iraq.
> > That's a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There
> > are those that say, they don't care what Iraq looks like once we
> > leave there. Let's just leave there. And I argue against that. I
> > don't think that's responsible. And I think it plays right into the
> > hands of Syria and Iran."
> >
> > Reyes also said he is eager to see the recommendations Wednesday from
> > the bipartisan panel headed by former secretary of State Jim Baker
> > and former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
> > Lee Hamilton. By some accounts, the panel is set to recommend an
> > adjustment of course that will include the beginning of troop
> > withdrawals pegged to progress on the ground along with other
> > political and diplomatic initiatives. But Reyes said such ideas are
> > not likely to substantially change his own views on the subject. "I'm
> > very interested in reading what their recommendations are. But this
> > is my position."
> >
> > Reyes's comments were immediately blasted by one Iraq war critic who
> > expressed concerns that they would give new respectability to an idea
> > that has lost considerable support in official Washington as the
> > violence in Iraq has escalated. "I think he [Reyes] needs a course
> > in Insurgency 101," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who has
> > been active in an anti-war group called the Steering Group for
> > Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. "Have they learned
> > nothing from Vietnam? If he pushes this and gets some support for it,
> > and with McCain in the Senate, it could become more respectable ... I
> > think Reyes has got a lot to learn."
> >
> > Yet one prominent Iraq war supporter, Cliff May, the president of the
> > Foundation for the Defense of Democracy who served on an advisory
> > panel that worked with the Baker-Hamilton group, said he was stunned
> > and pleasantly surprised by Reyes's views. "Wow, that's remarkable,"
> > May replied when NEWSWEEK told him of Reyes's comments. "Whenever
> > anybody like myself suggests that we need more troops, we get told
> > that it's not politically feasible. But if you have a leading
> > Democrat saying it, that strikes me as very significant .... I think
> > it's dawning on a lot of people that the price of a U.S. defeat would
> > be dire."
> >
> > One source familiar with aspects of the Baker-Hamilton panel's
> > deliberations said that the idea of an increase of U.S. troop
> > strength of 20,000 to 30,000 had been pushed by some U.S. military
> > commanders for some time. However, Democratic members of the
> > commission were unwilling to go along with any proposal that would
> > indicate an expansion of the U.S. mission in that country, according
> > to the source, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive
> > matters.
> >
> > Yet another member of the Baker-Hamilton advisory panel praised Reyes
> > for proposing the idea of increasing troops, saying it showed that he
> > "doesn't just fall back on political reflex." But, added Larry
> > Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who formerly
> > served as a U.S. political advisor in Iraq, Reyes's ideas were
> > unlikely to bear fruit unless accompanied with a far more extensive
> > strategy that included a "political and diplomatic" initiative to
> > reorder and rebuild support for the Iraqi government. "You can't
> > sustain an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 troops for very long?maybe
> > four to six months," Diamond said. "Can you really secure progress on
> > the ground in terms of knocking out death squads and militia activity
> > in four to six months? It won't make sense unless it's combined with
> > very intensive political and constitutional activity. Otherwise
> > putting in more troops is like putting more fingers in the dyke ... I
> > don't think there is any magic bullet."
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> --
> B.K. DeLong (K3GRN)
> bkdelong at pobox.com
> +1.617.797.8471
>
> http://www.wkdelong.org Son.
> http://www.ianetsec.com Work.
> http://www.bostonredcross.org Volunteer.
> http://www.carolingia.eastkingdom.org Service.
> http://bkdelong.livejournal.com Play.
>
>
> PGP Fingerprint:
> 38D4 D4D4 5819 8667 DFD5 A62D AF61 15FF 297D 67FE
>
> FOAF:
> http://foaf.brain-stream.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20061206/9f18e674/attachment.htm>