And while neither quote gave attribution to your worldwide brigade deployment math posted awhile back, I assume all three things are making reference to the same unalterable fact……..we don’t have the troops to maintain 150K beyond this current rotation.

That’s all true, but dipping to 100k or below would represent more than just the necessary decrease inherent in the temporary surge.

Frankly, the Army is broken and it appears that the senior Army leadership is finally recognizing that fact, or are at least willing to tell the President that the Army can no longer implement his policy. There’s also a concern, naturally, of what may happen if our broken Army is needed for a necessary war – I know this has been a concern in the military leadership for some time – with all our ground force “eggs” in the baskets of Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, our ability to respond and deter crises elsewhere is diminished.

I don’t know, some think President Bush is listening too much to his handlers, or at least, to the wrong handlers. The same could happen to a six year old too.

In some respects he’s right, history (mostly time) will temper the feelings about him to some extent. But I doubt it’d raise his reputation to the level he’d like to be associated with.

Give me my 2000 and 2004 votes back and revised ballots that has a six year old kid on it……and I’ll vote for the six year old kid.

It would not be because of obstinism (sp?) per se, but because the kid would undoubtedly be able to communicate better and think through problems better.

On the flip side of this coin, everyone here knows that Bush will not drawdown in advance of that natural April expiry date, nor will Collins, Sununu et al break ranks to allow anything earlier from the Dems.

Finally admitting that, eh? It good to see that some on the conservative side have noticed that Bush if bull-headed about policy to a fault.

And while neither quote gave attribution to your worldwide brigade deployment math posted awhile back, I assume all three things are making reference to the same unalterable fact……..we don’t have the troops to maintain 150K beyond this current rotation.

On the flip side of this coin, everyone here knows that Bush will not drawdown in advance of that natural April expiry date, nor will Collins, Sununu et al break ranks to allow anything earlier from the Dems.

Notwithstanding these relatively incontrovertable facts, how much do you want to bet that TMV spends the next 7 months making posts about “when will this !@#$%^&&* surge be ended?”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.