No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

How many troops does the US need?

Clinton is blamed for responding to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and attacks on the US by Al Quada inadequately or slowly, but when he did use the military the same people who impeached him over nothing and sicced the Special Prosecutor on him with no result on Whitewater were also accusing him of "Wagging the dog." These people now run all three branches of the US government, and Bush has presented a policy of preemptive attacks on potential threats to the US.

The result is a military force stretched so thin that another threat may well have to go unanswered.

The LA Times points out that In 2003, nearly three-quarters of the active Army's combat brigades and one-third of the National Guard's brigades were deployed abroad. Portions of a Marine Expeditionary Force remain in or near Iraq. All this leaves the U.S. with only a small strategic reserve to meet emerging threats. The slowness and slightness of our commitment to Liberia demonstrate the lack of strategic flexibility our current deployment has produced. Our ability to navigate the North Korea situation could also suffer.

We are now committed to Iraq. There is no Iraqi government except that provided by the US, and no real prospect of one for a year or more at the minimum. Iraq has also become a test of wills between the US and the Islamic terrorists. The simple presence of US troops there has been attracting warriors who want to make a statement by attacking the invading infidels, and this will get worse, not better.

The Iraqi people generally seem to be happy no longer have the misrule of Saddam and the Ba'athist Party, but they are not especially happy at being occupied by US troops. They want a government that they control themselves, and they want it soon.

The US also wants the Iraqis to have their own government so that we can have our troops back. First, we are likely to need them elsewhere pretty quickly, and second we are losing one dead every two days and would like to stop paying that price.

However, any government of the Iraqis has to be one that that does not become an enemy of the US again, and must be one that does not support terrorism, generally or in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only way this can be guaranteed is to leave US troops in Iraq and/or appoint and control the leaders of the Iraqi government.

Leaving US troops in Iraq will continue to strain the US military and at present costs us $4 billion a month. The cost is not going to drop soon, and the Iraqi oil wells provide at best $25 billiion a year when operating at peak capacity. They are not at present operating significantly. Leaving troops in Iraq also leaves them as easy targets for terrorists who will continue to be attracted by the target they present.

Controlling the leaders of Iraq will be quite obvious to the Iraqis and will not be much appreciated anywhere else in the Muslim world. That means that troops are required.

So we are stuck in Iraq. We need more troops, more money and no more commitments. In the meantime the Bush administration is cutting taxes for the rich, not even budgeting the costs of Iraq, refusing to tell the Congress what those costs are, running the most massive deficits every run bay any US government, and Rumsfield is on record as not even considering an increase in US Army troop strength.

I guess Bush has prayed for a miracle and has a due-in for it in his pocket. Otherwise, the US is simply SOL.

This is a total failure of government by the bush administration.
posted by Richard at 11:03 PM