I mocked the idea at the time as simply a retreat with a tough retort shouted over the shoulder as the big skedaddle kicks in. Once out, nobody--certainly not those who call for a withdrawal--would support sending troops back in (even if it could work after letting the situation get worse in our absence).
Well look what happened after we decided to send in a task force (battalion-sized unit) from Kuwait into Iraq for a month or so. After dropping from 160,000 in December to the baseline 138,000 and then to 132,000 more recently, we will go up by fewer than 1,000 for a number of weeks. Yet the cries of panic over this move are clear:
The deployment marks the first time US commanders have requested more troops since the February 22 bombing of a Shiite mosque ignited sectarian tensions in Iraq, and raises questions about prospects for significant troop cuts this year.
The mechanized infantry unit from the 2nd Brigade 1st Armored Division will deploy in the Baghdad area for 30 to 45 days to shore up security during the Arba-een holiday, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
Sending in one battalion for a month raises questions about eventually pulling a significant number of troops out this year? We went down a good amount and now go up a small percentage of the draw down and this is worrisome?
Ok, raise your hands if you think the Honorable Murtha and his friends would really support sending a hundred thousand or more back into Iraq if we pull out too soon, witness a deterioriation of the situation, and have to restore the situation? And given the representative's complaints about sending too few troops the first time, wouldn't he have to advocate several hundred thousand?
Now that really would be a profile in courage. Perhaps my history education is failing me, but I just can't seem to recall JFK's call to bear any burden to undermine the defense of our country.
