A Congressional Budget Office Report says President Bush's plan to surge 21,500 more troops into Iraq may actually mean a number of closer to 50,000 if you account for all the support troops a surge would require. Above, Army soldiers check surrounding building tops for snipers during a Jan. 24 operation in the Haifa Street district of Baghdad. NYTFrom The Small Wars Journal:
In the fall of 2006, the security situation in Iraq had deteriorated to a level worse than at any other period during the previous three years of U.S. occupation. Violence was on the rise and attacks by insurgents continued to increase even after the top Al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, was killed by U.S. forces. Calls for a drawdown of U.S. troops gained considerable support in Washington as policymakers questioned whether long-term stability in Iraq was achievable or if continued U.S. presence would merely add to the growing number of casualties. Reinforcing the perception that U.S. forces were not making sufficient gains was the release of a Marine Corps intelligence report stating that the struggle against Sunni insurgents in Al Anbar Province could not be won militarily.
Read more ....
My Comment: A good essay to read. An Afghan surge would be the most important policy decision made by the next U.S. President and his allies. It would involve tens of millions of people, and the armies of the U.S., its allies, Pakistan, and the entire Cnetral Asia region.