tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475948014630133294.post4294456311022125844..comments2023-08-07T06:53:03.176-08:00Comments on Nome, Home: A Moderate Stance on IraqJesse Zinkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11186900475486233243noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475948014630133294.post-33918507031812668582007-02-13T17:55:00.000-09:002007-02-13T17:55:00.000-09:00you'll have to add a "ml" onto the end of that url...you'll have to add a "ml" onto the end of that url I gave above: should end with html.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15278869900081036989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5475948014630133294.post-31396904752661456602007-02-13T17:52:00.000-09:002007-02-13T17:52:00.000-09:00I've heard it argued that by withdrawing our troop...I've heard it argued that by withdrawing our troops, there would be mayhem for a year or maybe two, then things would would calm down. Killing each other takes a lot of energy and eventually they would lose the will of it. The parallel was drawn with Vietnam when we withdrew - however it may not be a fair comparison because that was more political than sectarian. If true, the question would have to be: how many would continue to die should we stay? We seem to fuel at least some of the citizen killing by our presence. Or how many would die should we leave? I'm not one to say you can bet on that.<BR/><BR/>Or if we stay, is another 20 or even 40K troops enough to impact anything? I've heard it takes 20 troops per 1000 population to maintain security. Iraq being over 26 million, that would require over 500,000 foreign troops. For a sustainable stabilization force on a 24 month rotation cycle, you would need to draw from 2.5 million troops. These figures are directly off of:<BR/>http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html<BR/>A webpage I know nothing about (bias or otherwise) or how true these figures are. Just more thoughts for your discussion.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15278869900081036989noreply@blogger.com