The Dear leader has issued an edict to have all “combat troops” out of Iraq by August 31 2010. The 50,000 or so – count on it being closer to 60,000 – still in Iraq after August 31 are going to be what – non-combat troops I suppose?
This is idiocy of the highest order even for someone as idiotic as the Dear Leader. Here are some thoughts on this whole thing:
First, he’s 29 months later than he advocated while on the campaign. His position early on was to have the troops out by March 2008.
Second he should admit he was wrong about the surge and thank George Bush.
Third, is he really going to leave 50,000, essentially Peace Corp, support troops in Iraq without the protection of combat capable forces? No, I don’t think even he can be that stupid. Not to put too fine a point on it but he’s a liar when he says “all combat troops” will be out of Iraq by Aug 31 2009.
So how many combat troops will it take to ensure the safety of 50,000 “support troops?” Let’s say it’ll take two “brigades” of trigger pullers. They will not be called brigades because to call them what they are would expose the Dear Leader’s lie. Let’s put the mission on its head and call the “combat troops” who are supporting the non-combat troops “non-combat support troops who will engage in combat operations to support the support troops.” Got that?
So, let’s say it’ll take roughly the equivalent of two brigades (but let’s be clear these are not brigades) of non-combat support troops who will engage in combat operations to support the support troops. Let’s be optimistic and say that each non-brigade of non-combat support troops who will engage in combat to support the support troops will consist of about 3,000 non-combat soldiers who will engage in combat (actual number will be closer to 5,000).
So we’ve now got 6,000 of the 50,000 doing “non-combat” combat things. Historically, there is about a 10 to 1 ration between combat support and combat soldiers. Gee, that’ll put our troop force number in Iraq after Aug 31 at about 66,000.
Boy Wonder: “Holy faulty numbers Batman, who will be left to do the support mission?”
Batman: “Which support mission Robin? The non-combat support troops who will engage in combat to support the support troops’ mission? Or the actual non-combat support troops doing the actual support mission? And you look absolutely stunning in those tights!”
Boy Wonder: “Holy twist and turn Batman, this thing turns back on itself more often than an M.C. Escher print.”
Batman: “Indeed Robin, indeed. Now, let’s get back to the Batcave and practice our wrestling moves.”
To be sure, the Iraqi theater is what the military calls a “mature logistics theater.” As such the 10 to 1 tail may be much longer than required. Let be "hopeful" and say it’s 5 to 1. That’s 36,000 of a 50,000 man force at least partly given to non-combat support troops who will engage in combat operations to support the support troops. That leaves a meager 14,000 actual non-combat support troops to build roads, bridges and schools, restore power, repair the oil infrastructure and build political stability in a country the size of California.
We may need to send in a brigade or two of community organizers before it’s all over.
1 comment:
I would like to see Obama's plan to win Iraq and Afghanistan. This question was all the rage in 2004-05-06-07. Every democrat was going to share their plan once elected. Now that they are in office I would like to hear it. They are quick to say the surge was not a success. They say this can only be solved politically. Okay...what is the political plan? I may be wrong but this question seems to have fallen by the wayside. Could it be that they really do not have a plan? Where is THE PLAN? The Griffin.
Post a Comment