Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
Let's take a spin down memory lane.
Gen. Shinseki had angered Mr. Rumsfeld by predicting that the Pentagon would need a force of 150,000 over several years in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld's civilian aides insisted that the U.S. would be able to reduce its forces to 30,000 within a few months of the war.
Wait, did that sign say No Outlet?
U.S. military commanders are delaying the departure of 10,400 troops from Iraq and deploying another 1,500 Army paratroopers ahead of the planned January elections there, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The moves could push U.S. troop strength to its highest level of the entire Iraq mission, which began in March 2003. [...] The extensions and deployment will boost the U.S. military presence in Iraq from its current 138,000 troops to 150,000 in January, said Army Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez.
Chalk up another victory for faith-based policymaking!
TrackBack"Mr. President, I have total faith that we are completely fux0r3d."
(pause of something approximating cogitation)
"Well, as long as it ain't based on that heathen science them lib'ruls use!"
Posted by: Robust McManlyPants at December 1, 2004 07:07 PMOkay, what does it mean when 1,500 paratroopers are taking over posts in Baghdad to free up a like number of 1st Cavalry Division troops so those guys can "take part in offensive operations and patrols outside of Baghdad?"
And why does this sound ominous?
If Iraq’s elections are postponed beyond January, ... the Joint Staff has no plans to further extend those troops who have already been held in theater beyond their originally scheduled rotation dates.
The services would find other ways to bulk up manpower levels....
Posted by: Miss Authoritiva at December 1, 2004 11:47 PM