Using logic, if the U.S. troop surge had been the cause of the diminished violence, then why did the mayhem go up in 2005 when the United States undertook a troop surge of similar magnitude? Moreover, because little true political reconciliation has occurred in Iraq since the surge began, if the additional troops were the cause of the new tranquility, that calm should be evaporating now that U.S. forces are being reduced to pre-surge levels. Yet so far, no spike in violence is occurring. Thus, the logical conclusion is that other factors are likely to have been more important in improving conditions than the addition of more troops.
Questions! Always with the questions,
Originally published 11:09 p.m., May 4, 2004, updated 12:00 a.m., May 5, 2004
The Pentagon announced yesterday it will maintain its expanded force of 138,000 troops in Iraq at least through 2005, based on a request from Gen. John Abizaid, commander of forces in the region.
That level was attained by extending the tours of 20,000 troops already in Iraq and who now must be relieved from a larger replacement force.
“General Abizaid has now indicated his desire to retain the current level of forces in Iraq, roughly 135,000 to 138,000 forces, for longer than the 90 days that we recently extended about 20,000 forces to get up to that higher figure,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Seems we have a memory leak in the system. Now about those mercs… Basically the public discourse on the surge is 100% per Bush league bullshit.