How is PNAC's request for troops different than Kerry's 40k more?

[wuushew]

Kerry's proposal applied specifically to the Army and talked of post conflict skills and training.

However PNAC requires similar numbers, similar costs and would be used in the same area of the globe. So if defending the Democratic position how should one approach this in an argument?

[DireStrike]

1. I don't know that Kerry's position is "the democratic" position in this

case.

There's a difference in practicality - Kerry might have been able to get those 40,000 troops from allies instead of U.S. soldiers. But then that's not what he said, is it? Hmph.

[blm]

5. That 40, 000 was to help secure Iraq sooner so other nations

wouldn't balk at sending their troops, which would chang the perception to an international intervention instead of a US occupation as it stands now. That would have led to our troops coming home sooner.

Bush doesn't have the trust of the allies to pull it off.

[DireStrike]

6. Hmm, that might work. PNAC's would be permanant, Kerry's was stopgap

PNAC definitely wants a long term commitment, and it could certainly be argued that Kerry only wanted a short term increase.

If it's pull out or clean up, and he chose clean up... you're gonna need more troops for the time being.

[cornermouse]

2. I didn't agree with Kerry on this issue.

[moggie12]

3. That a darn good question, esp since Senate Dems also did

An e-mail from Harry Reid on behalf of the Senate Dems also proposed funding for more troops (as one of ten legislative proposals designed to be a "Democratic agenda). I personally support the idea of more troops -- for one thing, Bush is abusing the National Guardsmen. We probably do need the troops and forcing Bush to admit it is long overdue.

If you didn't see the new "Democratic Agenda", a link to it is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1525891

[DrWeird]

4. They have different plans on what they want to do with them.

nt

[LittleClarkie]

7. The Kerry plan: Go in force, get the job done, then get the fuck out

Much like the Powell Doctrine.

The Bush plan: Cha-ching! Bling, bling!

I doubt also that the Kerry plan included 14 bases. He wanted to resolve the situation as well as possible, get the Iraqi forces trained up, and then leave, while also taking the American face off the thing by getting the other nations to help.

In addition, the extra troops he suggested was the same number some generals (I think it was generals) suggested we have there in the first place. Bush never did send enough to get the job done.

Also...

The Kerry plan = concern for the troops

The Bush plan = anything BUT concern for the troops.