Otherwise 400,000 troops WOULD have been used.
If you read some of the commentary coming from the individuals responsible for planning and carrying out the campaign, one of the main reasons they went in with such a small force is that they didn't want to end up staying (the other reason was the element of surprise). Having only 150,000 soldiers forces the new Iraqi government to develop their own police and military units as quickly as possible in order to fill the gap. Wether or not this will be succesfull remains to be seen, however, it deffinitely makes sense. 400,000+ US soldiers in Iraq controlling all aspects of defense would be an undeniable occupation, and local opinion could quickly turn against them. As well, it would lead to a faster decline in support on the home front. On the other hand, 150,000 soldiers advising, training, equiping, and working alongside with a new Iraqi army generates a much better image, and is more effective in the long run. That's why I always laugh when people call it an occupation - 150,000 soldiers is nowhere near enough to control a country like Iraq, but it IS enough to help the new government get a good start. |
