Incite -- (v) 1: give an incentive; 2: provoke or stir up; "incite a riot"; 3: urge on; cause to act
Wednesday, January 12, 2005

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.

Contact The Author:

John Beck

Feedback Welcomed

Greatest Hits

The Complete United Nations Posts
Immoderate Moderates
Marketing Myopia
In defense of the Republic
UKIP in America
Playing Connect the Dots
A Point So Often Missed: The Presence of an Administered Rate
Reagan Remembrance
Dr. Wolfowitz, or How I Supported the Right War Waged in the Wrong Way for the Wrong Reasons
Divine Right of Kings and UN Mandates
A Fantastic Idea, If I Do Say So Myself
Why We Were Right to Liberate Iraq
The Crisis of Conservatism

Blogs Worth Bookmarking

Steal The Blinds
Poor Dudley's Almanac
Protein Wisdom
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
New Sisyphus
Jim Treacher
Ace of Spades
Captain's Quarters
Rambling's Journal
Neolibertarian Blog
LLP Group Blog
The Llama Butchers
The Castle Argghhh
The Politburo Diktat
The Dissident Frogman
In Search of Utopia
Aaron's cc:
You Know You Wanna
Classical Values
Clowning Glory
Vice Squad
Hit & Run
Link Mecca
The Corner
Power Line
Michelle Malkin
Mises Institute
marchand chronicles
Enlighten - New Jersey

More Top Reads

SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse
This Blog is Full of Crap
Who Tends the Fires
The Bleat
Outside the Beltway
Small Dead Animals
Kim du Toit
Tman in Tennessee
Hog On Ice
Pardon My English
Mr. Minority
Speed Of Thought
La Shawn Barber
Right Wing News
USS Clueless
Belmont Club
Shades of Gray
Seldom Sober
Roger L. Simon
Tacoma Blaze
A Small Victory
Murdoc Online
Iraq Elections Diatribe
Winds of Change
Enlighten - New Jersey
Random Fate
Riding Sun
The Daily File
Matt "The Man" Margolis
Bastard Sword
Roller Coaster of Hate

News Links

Blogger News Network
National Review Online
Tech Central Station
The Drudge Report
Reason Online
Mises Institute
The Weekly Standard
Front Page Magazine
Town Hall

Affiliations, Accolades, & Acknowledgements

The Neolibertarian Network


Image Hosted by
"More tallent than a million monkeys with typewriters."
--Glenn Reynolds

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Life, Liberty, Property Community

Reciprocal Blogrolling

Accidental Verbosity
Conservative Eyes
The Moderate Voice
Perpetual Three-Dot Column
Sudan Watch
Mystery Achievement
Le Sabot Post-Moderne
Comment Me No Comments
New Spew

Links That Amuse the Writers

Huffington's Toast
The IFOC News
Dave Barry's Blog
Drum Machine
Something Awful
Cox & Forkum
Exploding Dog


March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
August 2006
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
September 2008
November 2008
December 2008
March 2009
April 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009

The Elephant Graveyard

We Are Full of Shit
The Sicilian
The Diplomad
Insults Unpunished
Fear & Loathing in Iraq
Right Wingin-It
Serenity's Journal
Son of Nixon
Rachel Lucas


Site Design by Maystar
Ask not for whom the blog tolls...
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Listed on Blogwise
Blogarama - The Blog Directory


Image Hosted by

Email Questions and Comments

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
eXTReMe Tracker