Written by: Goemagog

Instapundit has it wrong, as do the people he cites.

Their position is that we didn't have enough soldiers to finish everything in Iraq when that war started, so it's fine that Rumsfeld has been against getting any more. Rumsfeld has continually advocated a smaller force than we have now, not an expansion of troop levels. We also would not have needed to delay the invasion if anybody acknowledged that we didn't have enough soldiers to see it through. We didn't stop drafting soldiers to fight in WW2 until that war was over, and we had started drafting more than a year before we were attacked. We didn't fight with just what we had when it started, we fought with that army plus as much as we could add to it.

The problem isn't that people who supported the war yet want more troops are hypocritical, it's that the administration said the war was absolutely necessary yet refuses to ackowledge the possibility of defeat. If defeat were not possible, the threat of force would have been sufficient and fighting would have ended almost immediately.

I feel the war in Iraq was necessary because they sponsored mercenary groups who are waging a war against us using terrorist tactics. Iraq is not the only country that was doing so, and we need to go after the others as well. We cannot do this because we have nothing left to do it with. We need a much larger military, both to increase troop levels in Iraq and to go after the other countries waging war against us.

It's another position oft-repeated and supported by Instapundit that more troops in Iraq would be nothing more than more targets. This isn't true.

More soldiers would give our enemies more people to attack, require more convoys that could be bombed, and more bases to be mortared, but those soldiers also mean that we can be looking in more places where our enemies gather, seizing more of their weapons, and killing more of their soldiers. More soldiers means that we can search and destroy more places at once. We'd also be better positioned to secure Iraq's borders to slow or prevent the continuing infiltration of mercenary recruits into the country.

More soldiers increases the chances that it (the campaign in Iraq and the war in general) will be over faster and in our favor. This is what Rumsfeld is against doing because he believes we have enough right now to win. We might have enough to win, but the chances of getting them being in the right place at the right time to kill all of our enemies before our politicians want to concede defeat and surrender to bin Laden is, in my opinion, unlikely. We may have training and equipment on our side, but our enemies have numbers (an almost inexhaustible supply of recruits from islamic countries), time (we'll end up with another carter someday, and if the war isn't over by then, they'll claim 'peace in our time'), and space (we only control the ground where our soldiers are, everything else is room for our enemies to organize, train, supply, and maneuver).

Rumsfeld may be right and the extra soldiers would have nothing to do but sit in a cafe drinking coffee and waving at passers-by, but I'd rather we had extra than be insufficient.

UPDATEORAMA: Going to the source, the Belmont Club is wrong.

Rumsfeld's efforts to reorganize divisions into a larger number of smaller brigades and the reallocation of money from weapons systems like submarines to the ground forces are tacit acknowledgement that the ground forces need to be augmented.

The Belmont Club writers are apparently unaware of the laws of physics. Breaking something into smaller pieces does NOT give you more than the original mass.

Divisions are comprised of brigades, which are comprised of smaller units, and an odd assortment of supporting units. Removing the division level does not give you more brigades unless you shrink the brigades that already exist, which means that each brigade will lose capacity. Plus, by removing the supporting units that exist at division level, you have a choice of either making the brigades larger so that each copies those support functions, or you further reduce their capabilities by removing whatever functions required those supporting units in the first place. Breaking up divisions does not augment ground strength in any way.

There is probably more than enough conventional military firepower in Iraq to incinerate any conceivable target. Even during the second battle for Fallujah, the calls on artillery and air did not stretch their capabilities. But where these fires are to be directed or raids are to be launched is a function of actionable intelligence.

Yes, we've got a lot of firepower in Iraq, but most "actionable intelligence" in a combat zone does NOT come from the CIA, FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, or the New York Times. Almost all of it comes from soldiers. Soldiers who have eyes and ears with which to collect information, communications gear to relay that information, and weapons with which they can act almost immediately on that information. Every unit above the company level has an intelligence section in their headquarters to collect and analyze information and liaison officers to build local relations (and collect more information).

We have uses directly related to the war to which more soldiers could be put. Doing so will increase the chances and speed of victory. The _ONLY_ reason for not sending more soldiers is that we don't have them. The only reason to claim that extra soldiers are not desireable to have is to avoid discussing where we could get them. The most obvious way to get them is conscription, and there is no subject more taboo in current political discourse. A foreign legion would help, but the administration would rather keep illiegal immigrants coming in to the country so that rich people can save money on servants.

Goe, for hospitals and against disease.