Troop levels in Iraq -- part 2

I post this letter from today's NY Times ...

To the Editor:

Increasing American troop strength to 150,000 to provide security for coming Iraqi elections (front page, Dec. 2) is moving our policy in exactly the wrong direction.

To really do the job, the United States would need to double or triple its occupation force, as Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, warned before the invasion of Iraq (he was forced out for his candor). Nobody in the United States or Iraq has the stomach for such a huge increase, which would probably require reinstituting the draft.

A growing chorus of military analysts, including many who supported the war, has concluded that our large military presence is the problem rather than the solution, inciting anger and insurgency. The retired Army major general William L. Nash, the former NATO commander in Bosnia, said: "I resigned from the 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' club four months ago. We have too many now."

The Bush administration should not only begin bringing our troops home, but it should also immediately announce a short timetable for complete withdrawal.

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund
Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 2, 2004

... because Chris V. raised the issue a few days ago, and because another student has told me that his friend in the Marines told him (I know, hardly "well-sourced" info), that 5,000 more are already scheduled for later this year (for now they are soaking up the sun in Australia and other far eastern locales until the politically opportune time for deployment arrives). Note, also the interesting quote from William Nash in the letter.