Not a good deal. You;d still need 20 times the troops to really "fix" the situation anyway. Looks like a waste of time to me. The terrorist are easily going to hold out longer than us. They actually live there and all that.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070306/...o5bYIG9e0DW7oF
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out President George W. Bush's Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.
In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.
"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.
There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.
In a speech to the American Legion veterans organization, Bush insisted the new Iraq security plan he announced was making gradual progress, despite new violence.
The new estimate of the rising number of troops being committed to the war came as House Democrats continued wrangling over how to end America's combat role in Iraq.
After a meeting of leaders and the 233-member Democratic caucus there was no sign that liberals, moderates and conservatives in the party were getting behind an comprehensive war plan.
But Democratic Rep. James Moran (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, who sits on a House panel overseeing war funding, said upcoming legislation would include a date in 2008 for ending the war.
Democrats are targeting a $100 billion emergency war spending bill for conditions that could prompt a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. House leaders want to pass the bill before a two-week recess starting the beginning of April.
Democratic leaders said the bill would increase U.S. funds to battle al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, impose "benchmarks" for measuring the Iraqi government's progress in taking over security activities and enforce Pentagon standards for equipping and training U.S. troops headed for combat.
But a fight over possible presidential waivers for such conditions continued among Democrats.
Arguing against any congressional attempt to scale back the mission, Bush said: "The mission is America's mission and our failure would be America's failure."
"Iraqi and U.S. forces are making gradual but important progress almost every day and we will remain steadfast until our objectives are achieved," Bush said.
His comments and the Democratic maneuvering came as the Pentagon announced nine U.S. troops died in two bomb attacks north of Baghdad. Meanwhile, insurgents killed 112 Shi'ite pilgrims heading to Iraq's holy city of Kerbala.
The new attacks are likely to increase sectarian tensions between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs that have threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.
The deaths of the nine U.S. soldiers made for the deadliest day for U.S. forces since they launched the security crackdown in the capital three weeks ago.
The estimate of 4,000 to 7,000 new support troops needed for Iraq contrasts with a February 6 forecast by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that as many as 3,000 would be needed.
The higher estimate could raise the projected $5.6 billion price tag of the troop surge by about $1 billion, if about 4,000 support troops are needed, England said.
The Pentagon would "reallocate," or shift some money around, to pay for the added costs instead of asking Congress for additional funds, England said.
(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Matt Spetalnick)