Trimegistus,

 Where are you getting your numbers? Active duty strength of the Army is around 470,000.  70% of all comabt vehicles in the United States Army are in Iraq. We only have a 10 division Army. Despite the fact that he is a douche, icus raises a good point. Two new division created in 2002 would make a big difference right about now. 

Only a republican could get away with not increasing the size of the military during a war.  face it, if a democrat did the same thing we'd crucify him around here. And rightly so. George Bush shouldn't get a pass on this.

You know that when the troops de-surged back from Iraq, the Congressional Dems would have taken credit for it, claiming that Bush was being forced to cave in to their MoveOn-crafted demands. But the moron Bush pre-empted them by claiming credit first. And PavlovPelosi contradicted him! He actually baited her into telling the truth!

It's... Rovian.

>>I guess two additional divisions would have gotten us to Baghdad in two weeks instead of three?  

Wasn't 3rd ID late to war because Turkey caught the asshole bug? Didn't make much difference. Saddam was still toast.

Ace? Elitist?

**snicker**

 flannel shirt drenched in Old Spice and engine oil?

Ah. I see you've met my dad.

PA beat me to it, troop levels are authorized by Congress.  Bush can certainly make the case for it, but it's up to them to make it happen.

They usually (but certainly not always) act on recommendations from the Joint Chiefs.

Does anybody, including icus really believe this Congress would choose to do this?  NFW.  The crazies would go ape-shit and everybody knows it.

How about pressing the 30,000 or so human trip wires in South Korea into action.

Sorry I was not sarcastic enough for you Tushar

Al Hamdu Lillah.

^{Will you hold me tight and safe in your big, strong arms?}
Why the tease Ace? Why?!

The point is they are not needed in S.Korea.  They are put there to be killed.  Triggering the U.S.A defense of S.Korea. 

Sean's right. There's no way 30,000 US troops are going to defend SK from over a million NK troops.

Of course, right now is probably not a good time to pull them out as Lil' Kim is sort of going along with the plan. But I fail to see why a country with one of the largest economies in the world can't be responsible for its own defense.

And I don't mean Germany.

Bush surely should have created two new divisions prior to the Iraq War, but it's questionable how much such an impact such a common-sense move would have had.

Whoa, Ace--any clue to how long it takes to set up two divisions? I'm a former Air Force pilot, but even I know that this means two divisions worth of NCOs, company grade officers, and senior officers. You don't just wave a wand and make that happen. Keeping your experienced troops is tough enough even with stop-loss programs. It's wayyyy easier to disband an Army than it is to build one. Just ask Hillary's husband. My uninformed guess is 4-7 years after Congress funds it. How about an Army personnel type to set us straight?

Note the implication here: The American people must be sold on the idea of not abandoning Iraq and surrendering. Americans are all for just giving up and President Bush has to convince us all otherwise!

Might I suggest you start by dialing back the patronizing and arrogant tone?

OK, Nom, I never turn down beer. You win.

As for the adding brigades issue, at the time we were fighting a spec-ops intensive campaign in Afghanistan, and looking at a fast takedown of Iraq using three divisions. No one was interested in fighting a long counterinsurgency there, because we had no idea how fucked up that country was behind the facade. Also, a lot of the cadre for the new brigades came from units that had already fought over there and then refitted to the new model, so there's a time lag between authorization and it being ready to go.

It would have been nice if the post 9/11 flood of recruits had worked out.