|
I think cutting troop levels would help, but not in the amount he is suggesting. His idea of cutting back to four superbases is nothing new. I remember overhearing the plan to cut down to six "superbases", but that whenever they planned to move off a base, violence would resurge, and we'd move back in. I think a more achievable goal would be to cut troop numbers to 120K in the first half of 2007, and down to 100K by the end of 2007. This would let the leaders of Iraq know that we are not just planning to remain with a full force for the long haul.
I do feel he is a bit optimistic about the Iraqi leadership, but all my thoughts on the way things would work out there with the current three different sects (is that the right word for it; sunnis, shias, and kurds) are just worse.
The training we have for the Iraqi Army and Police is rather good. It's difficult, troublesome and arduous, and our military folks in charge of training the Iraqis are some of the best people I've met (as professionals, military-professionals and as friends).
As for his cutting back to 60K troops, and dropping costs to $30billion. I think that's quite the cut. I think if we halfed the amount of troops to 72,000, we would still be throwing $60 billion into it.
Great article though, definitely got the noggin' thinking, and has had some better ideas on the Iraq situation than most anything I've heard recently.
|