130,000 troops sounds like such a big number. It's tough to fathom numbers that big. So let me put some perspective on it. Pro Player Stadium in Miami holds 75,000 people. So all of our troops would fit into less than two Pro Player Stadiums. Supposedly that is the number of troops to secure Iraq. But does that make any sense? Iraq is about twice the size of Texas, and it has about 4 million more people than Texas.
Now one has to assume that when they say troops that includes maintenance people, logisitics folks (e.g. Jessica Lynch), and others whose primary purpose is not to hold a gun and shoot it at people. So let's be optomistic and say that half of the troops there are gun-toting soldiers. That's about 65,000.
Another interesting Texas number is 76,000. That's the number of full-time peace officers employed by Texas state and local law enforcement. As far as I know there is no war raging in Texas. So how can we need less gun-toting soldiers in Iraq than we have police in Texas? Especially given that Iraq is twice the size and has more population?
The answer is that you can't. 130,000 soldiers can't possibly secure Iraq. You need a lot more. Take Afghanistan, we supposedly hold secured that country with 18,000 soldiers. But only one in every six people in that country were in an urban setting. It took over 300,000 to secure Bosnia where fully one half lived in urban settings. What do you think the number should be in Iraq where three in four live in an urban setting?
Yeah, clearly 130,000 is far fewer than we need. And it's that type of poor planning and mis-judgement that has hurt us all along. What Bush needs to do is take an honest look at Iraq and either send in the 600,000 troops required to settle and secure the country, or get all of our troops out of there. As it is now we are just playing a war of attrition while watching the fuse burn on a civil war that we will be right in the middle of.
Posted by jherr at March 24, 2006 08:18 PMI'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just asking. How many Iraqi forces are fighting with us? Iraqi police? Coalition forces? U.N. Peacekeepers? I honestly don't know the numbers. That's why I'm asking.
Posted by: Jacqueline at March 25, 2006 07:46 AMIn the spirit of not wanting to pick a fight here is what I think I understand from the murky world that is 'information about the Iraq war'. ;-)
I'm not aware of any U.N. peace keeper. My understanding is the Britain is the only "coalition of the willing" partner left and that number is less than 10,000. Actually, wait, I think Australia is there two with a very minor presence.
The number of Iraqi police varies widely depending on the source. And their ability to stand their ground and act without sectarian bias is in question. Over the past three days there were three coordinated attacks against police stations with over 200 dead.
If insurgents are able to stage coordinate attacks and cause massive casualties I think it's fair to say that there aren't enough police or protection of police facilities.
In addition the size of the operation Iraqi military force is in question. My understanding is the official number of battalions able to operate independently was 1 last year, and 0 this year. Though the counter-argument is that 'operate independently' is a high bar that is above generally 'useful'.
Posted by: jherr at March 25, 2006 08:08 AMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)