The Pentagon must have been reading my posts

Los Angeles Times(Robert Burns, Washington)
Friday, 3rd December

US numbers are to increase from 138,000 to 150,000 prior to the upcoming elections in January.

1500 troops from the 82nd Airborne 10,400 troops from the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division (tour to be extended from October till March).

Is this the start of more increases? Why aren't the numbers higher already?

Powell said, before they went to war, that if they were going in there, they should use overwhelming force. He wanted to send as many troops as they possibly could and completely wipe out the enemy with numbers and fire power. I don't remember the exact number that he wanted to send in, but it was higher than 100k. I'm pretty sure at this point they're starting to realize the lack of personel in certain areas. Who knows, maybe its all part of our exit strategy.

This is what I think we should do though. I say we round of the troops and be like the Baltimore Colts. We pack everything up one night and just leave. We sneak out of the country, don't tell anyone, and let them figure it out. Eh, what's the worst that could happen if we did that? A terrorist attack? They'd be contradicting themselves if they attacked us after we left.

I think 12,000 troops are an inadequate number, as much commotion as there is going on over there. I just don't think 12,000 will do the trick. But hey, it's not like we have more to spare; we are already spread as thin as can be.

1500 82nd guys could bring hell. I help train units as a COB before they ship out and lets just say this is the tip of the iceberg.

what u need is armore calvary patrolling iraq, they are much better than bullet-prone infantry, but just like infantry, tanks also have its weakness aginsit rpg , bombs and mines

Will the numbers have to increase again if the elections are postponed for say 6 months?

In urban environments, Infantry is key. More so than in any other terrain. Cavalry is neccessary firepower support for them, but the brunt of the operation will be carried out by the infantry... that's just the reality of urban warfare.
Unless your objective is to wipe out the city... then you can just let the artillery and air strikes do the trick.
The Russians sent in armor into Chechnya without adequate infantry support and got hammered.
And now because more and more battles are being fought in urban environments, the percieved trend of the infantry becoming obsolete has yet again been delayed big time. The infantry is so much more important now and properly trained infantrymen are absolutely crucial.

Originally Posted by Flak88

what u need is armore calvary patrolling iraq, they are much better than bullet-prone infantry, but just like infantry, tanks also have its weakness aginsit rpg , bombs and mines

You know, Sun Tzu said in The Art of War to never occupy a city. He said to either completely destroy it, or leave, there is no middle ground. So at this point, I'm curious as to what is going to be done since I'm sure our strategists have read The Art of War and understand what Sun Tzu meant when he said that.

look at stalingrad, thats such an amazing battle, but russian using tanks in checnya cities?? dont they learn from anything

Read today that several US troops are sueing the US Government for breach of contract, now that they have to stay longer in Iraq beyond the period of time they thought they signed on for.

How is morale in some of these national guard units?