Lots of eye-blotting and faux sobriety over at the WaPo editorial page today about the Mosul bloodbath. In it, they cling unthinkingly to the "if only that bastard Rumsfeld had sent more troops!" mantra:
Thanks in part to the mistakes of the Bush administration, which has failed to deploy enough troops to places such as Mosul, it's not yet clear which side will win this fateful battle...
I'd just like to ask, though, what is it exactly that these extra troops would be doing in Mosul to prevent these attacks? Maybe they would be going house to house, kicking in doors, looking for insurgents. Certainly that would decrease the body count, right? Isn't it much more likely that more troops would equal more targets? It's not like we're weak on our right flank and need air support and an armored division. More troops would mean one of two things: a different (indefinite colonial/nation-building style) mission, or else more targets for insurgents.
Get 'em out, already.
Interesting point. It seems to me that we're caught in a damned-if-we-do-and-damned-if-we-don't situation in Iraq. One the one hand, it seems like we have too few troops to establish order in the country. On the other, if you're right, sending more troops won't necessarily help.
On another note, I think it's most likely that the administration will pull troops out of Iraq by the anuary 30th elections, claim victory, and blame the Iraqis if the country descends into chaos or civil war afterwards.
Posted by: Parker | December 22, 2004 at 01:02 PM