How Much Is Enough?In the battle over how many troops are needed to keep the peace in Iraq, one thing is clear: Republicans are just as guilty of wearing rose-colored glasses as we are, the"give peace a chance" granola-eating anarchist segment of the population. How else to explain the administration's grossly underestimated figures? Rumsfeld dismisses the notion of "hundreds of thousands" of troops as "inaccurate." There are now 160,000 troops in Iraq, and most analysts say we need more. How much closer can you get to "hundreds of thousands" and still be inaccurate?
In addition, Wolfowitz of Arabia said the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. Maybe that was true on CNN for about five minutes, but I think the Iraqi people's goodwill has probably run out, after being invaded, bombed and desecrated in the name of "liberation." And he was positive that other countries, including France, would be glad to help recontruct and police Iraq. Well, guess what? Apart from our "new Europe" friends, we don't really have any other volunteers, and we really don't want any. And we're pretty sure we don't want the U.N. stepping in to help us.
So, America, who is going to foot the bil but us? Maybe everyone who derided us as unpatriotic should consider volunteering.
