Bring em' on, Part 2

On Tuesday, retired generals (who have actually served their country in wartime) say this of the situation in Iraq and the adequacy of our forces there:

"We need far more than 150,000 troops to secure a country of that size." - Retired Air Force General Chuck Boyd
Reuters Interview
July 1, 2003

"Our army is absolutely stretched thin." - Retired Army General Dan Christman
Reuters Interview
July 1, 2003


(thanks to Billmon)



On Wednesday, Bush (who went AWOL and got away with it during Vietnam), says this of the situation in Iraq and the adequacy of our forces there:

"Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."



Ironically, also on Wednesday, Bush's man in charge of Iraq asks for more troops:

"The top American administrator in Iraq (L. Paul Bremer), confronting growing anti-U.S. anger and guerrilla-style attacks, is asking for more American troops and dozens of civilian officials to help speed up the restoration of order and public services...

Rumsfeld does not want to send more than the 146,000 American soldiers already in Iraq, and the issue is being fiercely debated, the U.S. officials said.

Previously, Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz rejected an estimate by the former Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, that several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be required to ensure stability in post-Hussein Iraq...

Bremer 'has sent in a large request for a large number of people from all agencies of government," the official said. "It's a very long list, and it was for all kinds of people.'"


I'm confused. George says we have enough people over there, and he invites the enemy to attack us because "we have the force necessary to deal with the situation". But military experts and the man actually in charge in Iraq say we're horrendously undermanned.

Is our President just plain stupid? Or just plain dishonest? I just don't know.


-tn

Hits