Hi LindyBill; Re: "Carl, why do you refuse to admit that we are not going to the "Troops on the Ground" that you have set as a figure before the invasion?"
The figure for the "troops on the ground" was around 200 to 250,000. The total number of "troops on the ground" in Kuwait right now is around 20,000. So why should I admit to it?
US Forces Order of Battle
...
It is believed that the total Army presence in the region is nearly 25,000 soldiers.
...
globalsecurity.org
What I've been telling you is pretty much identical for most of a year. Let me recapitulate:
(a) The US can't fight without allied support.
(b) Any fight with Iraq will require a massive call-up of the reserves -- there will be no "low cal" war.
(c) The US would have to activate 150 to 250,000 reservists about 10 weeks before the war (above the Afghanistan maintenance level of 50,000).
(d) The will give an ultimatum with a fixed date (not a "time is running out" BS) before any real war will start.
(e) The US merchant marine will be called up to support any real war.
As of right now, my prediction that a "low cal" war with Iraq was impossible has been proved correct.
That the US won't fight without allied support is well supported by the fact that the US is going back to the UN security council for another resolution.
My estimate for the reserves from a year ago are compatible with the figures now being bandied about, but still our activations are far below that needed for a real fight.
Realistic estimates for when a war could start have now been pushed back to mid March. This is consistent with my 8~10 week lead time for Reserves activation:
globalsecurity.org
Another "deadline" just went by, and still not only is there no war, there isn't even a deadline. Don't you ever get disappointed? It seems to me that once you've looked under the tree, Christmas after Christmas, and seen nothing but a pile of BS you should eventually give up on the pony. At the very least, you've got a hell of a set of gonads to be here telling me to give up.
As I've said before, the big problem for the war party is that the public is split on it. I don't know if you saw the interview with Schwarzkopf (see #reply-18501640 for the Washington Post article, #reply-18502421 for GST's version of the interview). The problem for Bush is that people with the CVs of Schwarzkopf are telling the voters that we shouldn't invade Iraq.
Also, there is still no significant activation of the merchant marine. If we decide on a war, you will see 50~100 ships activated. This will require all kinds of stuff that will be very obvious on the web. I find indications that maybe a dozen ships or so are activated right now.
All this indicates that Bush is still undecided, which is what I've been saying all along.
Not only has Bush not spent the bucks required to go to war (i.e. heavy activation of the reserves and merchant marine), he also has not spent the diplomatic/political capital required (i.e. giving a deadline and saying to hell with our allies). He's zero for two. That's why Steven den Beste is so upset. You should be too, if you think we're going in. At the very least you should take that free money they're handing out at tradesports.com
-- Carl
P.S. I'm about to go read the Turkish Press, and will post an update to the thread if I find anything interesting. |
