http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/politics/22MILI.html?ex=1070082000&en=5d855fae49eff4c4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLEASHINGTON, Nov. 21 — Army planning for Iraq currently assumes keeping about 100,000 United States troops there through March 2006, a senior Army officer said Friday. The plans reflect the concerns of some Army officials that stabilizing Iraq could be more difficult than originally planned.
The officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, warned that maintaining a force of that size in Iraq beyond then would cause the Army to "really start to feel the pain" from stresses on overtaxed active-duty, Reserve and National Guard troops.
The officer was offering a senior-level Army view on the issue, but the size of any future American force in Iraq will ultimately be decided by President Bush and a new provisional Iraqi government that is expected to assume control from an American administrator by June. The Army plans nevertheless give a view of top-level Pentagon thinking about the size of the American force that may be needed in Iraq well beyond the time next year when Washington expects to turn political control of Iraq back to Iraqi leaders.
Mr. Bush has said he will be guided by the military's judgment in deciding troop levels. Military officials have said they will base their recommendations largely on security conditions in Iraq and the extent Iraqis are trained to fill missions now carried out by American troops.
Another senior military official cautioned that while the senior Army officer's comments reflected prudent planning, it "has nothing to do with what the security situation on the ground might be in 18 months."
<snip>
God, this is sounding more and more like pre Nam ress releases. Hey, the Gulf of Tonkin (sp?) has already been replaced by WMD.
Sad thing about that?
Everyone knows it's a lie this time and just doesn't care.