Not enough troop, or too many?

[FlamesAddiction]

It looks like some of the hawks are starting to re-think their strategy.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...forces_in_iraq/

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.
"Our large, direct presence has fueled the Iraqi insurgency as much as it has suppressed it," said Michael Vickers, a conservative-leaning Pentagon consultant and longtime senior CIA official who supported the war.

Retired Army Major General William 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."

Nash, who supported Hussein's ouster, said a substantial reduction after the Iraqi elections in January "would be a wise and judicious move" to demonstrate that the Americans are leaving. The remaining US forces should concentrate their energies on border operations, he added. "The absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."

That's pretty much what I've been arguing from the beginning. You can't defeat an insurgency with brute force, because all it does is promote more hostilities and delays any kind of peace.

[Looger]

i tend to think that the recent retaking of fallujah indicates that with the current US strategy, there are not enough troops.

with more coalition troops other options might open up.

but as long as there are not enough troops to protect all assets and secure all cities, then other insurgencies breaking out will only escalate.

if you're gonna go in as an invader, go in big. it will cut losses like the dozens of marines it took to retake fallujah.

and each city that has to be retaken also increases the number of civilian dead, and that is not too popular. it's way past 5 figures now, and the insurgents themselves are a lot less careful with their bombing than the americans.

i think the US has two paths:

1) reduce the number of US troops already there, replaced by iraqi security forces.

they've been trying this but the quality and the number of troops currently available, are not enough - highlighted grimly by the massacre of 40+ boot campers a couple of weeks back.

this option is slipping away, troop effectiveness may not be as high in a year - these guys need a break.

2) go in huge. friggin' huge. end all insurgency with an iron fist, with twice the troops currently there. use strongholds at all economic chokepoints, use massive armed escort for every truck convoy, limit traffic, have total martial law, everywhere. there will be civilian deaths but that number will pale in comparison to a years-long insurgency.

[CaptainCrunch]

option 3, replace the troops with roving bands of seals, green beret's, pathfinders, ak Britian and any other covert special forces team that you can find. Give them an unlimited hunting license and give them no geographic limits. If Insurgents are going into Iran or Syria follow them in. Ask Britain to supply SAS troops and Canada to covertly supply JTF-2 members. Ask the Russians for a battalion of Spetznaz to go mountain hunting.

Set the CIA loose to find out where the funding and weapons are coming from. Start eliminating those targets as well.

No more airstrikes, or missile strikes.

Post huge bounties for the heads of known insurgency leaders. encourage mercenaries to hunt them down.

Don't make public any successes, just dissapear them.

Leak information that will make the different terrorists cells distrust each other, try to encourage a civil war between them.

As many snipers as you can find, give them the tag to go after suspected leaders.

Leave a nominal number of troops as advisors to the Iraqi military pump up the recruitment efforts.

Its becoming apparent that the Insurgents aren't going to fight a conventional war, so its time to start playing as dirty as they are.

[Looger]

ah yes, the colombia solution.

not working.

what's the count, 20,000 mercenaries?