I just heard on Keith Olberman that we need to send 88,000

[az chela]

more troops to Iraq and afghanistan.This was said by a democrat that served in the war

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Can they send Army and not more National Guard :-( ???

Things are so f'ed up :cry:

[w8liftinglady]

9. 54,000 army reservists and ng are activated as of 1/31

http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10464
At any given time, services may mobilize some units and individuals while demobilizing others, making it possible for these figures to either increase or decrease. Total number currently on active duty in support of the partial mobilization for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve is 74,943; Navy Reserve, 5,438; Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, 5,624; Marine Corps Reserve, 5,498; and the Coast Guard Reserve, 309. This brings the total National Guard and Reserve personnel, who have been mobilized, to 91,812, including both units and individual augmentees.

[madfloridian]

2. Patrick Murphy, Blue Dog extraordinaire.

The one who said pray for them.

[stellanoir]

3. Did Olberman say that or someone he interviewed ?

Didn't see it.

[az chela]

5. remember you heard it here first Stella,lol

[SharonAnn]

8. It was a calculation based on the support staff needed for 21,000 combat troops.

[az chela]

4. yup partick Murphy said it

he thinks we need to fight half the middle east and agrees we cant quit

[Daylin Byak]

7. And wasn't this the guy in 2006 on the campaign trail

Saying we need to find a real solution in Iraq and not stay the course.

He'll be gone by 2009 if he keeps saying stupid stuff like the solution in Iraq is "prayer".

The Democrats do know that the only reason there even in the majority to begin with is because there the ones that a new plan for Iraq.

Some plan, meet the new boss same as the old boss.

[sofa king]

6. That's a crazy-talk number!

Vietnam is a country 100,000 km2 smaller than Iraq and we couldn't keep a lid on the southern half of it with half a million troops (and considerably more assistance from other countries than we have in Iraq now). There's no way we're going to improve anything in Iraq with a mere 88,000 additional troops, much less the rest of the Middle East.

Unless you're talking about 88,000 combat troops, which would translate to between four and eight divisions of troops we don't have. The entire U.S. military has thirteen active duty divisions, with one-third of them theoretically ready for duty at a given time (which is why we're keeping our units in the field longer and longer). That of course would not include the logistical "tail" necessary to support such troops, which is largely but not entirely covered by Dick Cheney's version of the Todt Organisation.

Face it: we're screwed. The objective wasn't to win; it was to profit from our tax dollars and raid the Iraqi treasury for all it was worth. In that sense it's "Mission Accomplished," but otherwise it's merely a question of how many more kids we're going to put through the meatgrinder before we slink off with our tail between our legs.