Their other excellent recommendation is to dramatically increase the number of embedded Coalition soldiers. And while we’re at it, somebody should compel the sleepy defense ministry in Baghdad to pay the Iraqi troops. The discretionary funds in the hands of our field commanders can make up some of the slack, but that is totally improper. Maliki et. al. say they want sovereign authority. Fine. Let them act like a government and pay their employees.

Note that an increase in embeds doesn’t necessarily require an increase in overall troop strength. We’ve got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don’t know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it’s a substantial number. Enough of that.

Having said that, I have to disagree with the rest of Ledeen’s article. We’re already stuck in a 4 year long war in Iraq with no end in sight, and he’s still talking about having to “go after” Syria and Iran in this article, arguing that “this is the ideal moment” to do so.

I guess I shouldn’t be all that suprised, given that this is the guy who gave us what Jonah Goldberg calls the Ledeen Doctrine:

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.

First of all, this is now either active units second or third time over in the box. They are overly stretched to cover the ground with the “whack-a-mole” strategy being commanded to them because of lack of troops to do the job correctly.

Secondly, not everyone has the skills to be infantry, military police, combat engineer, civil affairs, special forces, or whatever. For someone really so smart, he sure does not know how forces are comprised. There has to be someone to support the guys who are doing the daily patrols. As the Bible says, not everyone can be the hands; while others are the arms, eyes, ears, and so forth.

Thirdly, what he is also saying is against the law; though the envelope has been pushed lately (which is a good thing from my POV). What he is saying is to send women in to combat positions. Right now that is a no-no. Cal Thomas and fellow Corner polemic Kate O’Beirne (sp?) do not think that should be the case.

What I am getting at with all three points is that he should send his daughter back to Iraq while wearing ACUs and carrying a rifle. We need her over there, obviously she is not trained to be riding around Baghdad, and her being a female is not a hinderance for her to get into combat.

The US Army and US Marines are now on finishing their second tours or starting their third tours in Iraq. It is a little hypocritical to say “I am not sure how many of you all are not doing your jobs, but it is substantial”. If he wants to complain about the plush lifestyle over there, then go after KBR for their cost-plus contract for their ability to make more money with more goods and services they can provide to the US military.

He is also a hypocrite to dictate how resources are to be used. He is not in the US Army with a command. His daughter was given a waiver for either a GS-15 or a senior executive position for her work at CPA right out of college. A 15 position is an equivalent to a colonel position. BTW, I wonder how much he would have stained his shorts if he had known someone was treating his daughter the way he wants to treat other people?