Lawrence Kaplan (with Bill Kristol) February, 2003:
The United States may need to occupy Iraq for some time. Though the UN, European and Arab forces will, as in Afghanistan, contribute troops, the principal responsibility will doubtless fall to the country that liberates Baghdad. According to one estimate, initially as many as 75,000 US troops may be required to police the war’s aftermath, at a cost of $16 billion a year. As other countries’ forces arrive, and as Iraq rebuilds its economy and political system, that force could probably be drawn to several thousand soldiers after a year or two. After Saddam Hussein has been defeated and Iraq occupied installing a decent democratic government in Baghdad should be a manageable task for the United States.
Now here's Kaplan in March 2006:
The administration intends to draw down troop levels to 100,000 by the end of the year, with the pullback already well underway as U.S. forces surrender large swaths of the countryside and hunker down in their bases. The plan infuriates many officers, who can only say privately what noncommissioned officers say openly. "In order to fix the situation here," Sabre Squadron's Sergeant José Chavez says, "we need at least 180,000 troops." Iraq, however, will soon have about half that. An effective counterinsurgency strategy may require time and patience. But the war's architects have run out of both.
And now, naturally, in May 2007 he says congressional liberals are ignorant about Iraq.
UPDATE: It should be said, though, that if you want bad Iraq commentary, accept no substitutes for Martin Peretz's article.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Cryptic Ned:
He seems to be right about that, though.
Posted by Cryptic Ned
Posted by Cryptic Ned | May 1, 2007 11:24 AM