US-led forces in Iraq probably insufficient -Italy

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17184923.htm

ROME, April 17 (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces in Iraq are probably too few to maintain security, but Italy is not considering sending more soldiers to the region, Italian Defence Minister Antonio Marzano was quoted as saying on Saturday.

The United States and its allies have some 150,000 troops in Iraq and are struggling to contain violence in the country.

"The (experts) say that 150,000 isn't enough and that you need 500,000. It's possible," Marzano said in an interview with Corriere della Sera newspaper.

"The force was adequate to remove the regime of Saddam (Hussein). But it is probable that it is insufficient to maintain order during the transition period," he added.

more

[bluestateguy]

1. Shinseki was right

He said this and was shown the door by the briefcase toting, can't Pentagon chickenhawk bureaucrats who never served in uniform and can't park their SUV's straight.

A post-election draft (if Baby Bush wins) will provide the necessary warm bodies for occupation.

[pippin]

2. Especially if the US is going to have to face thousands

of angry Iraqis who want us gone.


We clearly also haven't learned from Vietnam that military tactics aren't effective against guerilla warfare. "The enemy" isn't in uniform, and not easily identifiable so what ends up happening is to wipe out masses of civilians in the hope you get to the actual "enemies" along the way.

May we be forgiven for this carnage.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&story...

[cliss]

3. I also believe we are under-staffed in Iraq.

Iraq has 26 million people (we've lost some). We currently have 135,000 american troops + 25,000 coalition forces which probably contribute more to peacekeeping than warfare. That's about 200 Iraqis to every soldier. Outnumbered. Add to the mix the entire Middle East which is hostile to an occupying army. I've read that Iraqis can get weapons at the "munitions grocery store".

Throw in Al-Qaeda, Ansar-al-Islam, Imam Al-Sadr and you have the recipe for disaster.

So why don't we send in more troops? Exactly what I was wondering. I've often wondered why Rumsfeld keeps saying, "we'll send in more if they need it". Why the hell doesn't he, since we obviously need more. The answer is that we probably don't have many to spare. The rest of our 1.2 million American forces are occupied elsewhere. They're busy guarding many volatile places which could explode if they were to leave.

Rumsfeld knows this, he just doesn't want the enemy to know it.