Not a "Surge;" More Like "Replacements"
Tell me something: what's the point of adding 21,500 more US troops when Britain's announcing that they will cut 1,600 in the next few months? Aren't these "extra" soldiers now just replacements-in-the-making? Even at a net gain of 19,900, you have to count the other countries who are considering a withdrawal, and the number of US troops who are dying on a daily -no wait- hourly basis.
Sure, you can argue that this may mean that Britain's forces have properly trained Iraqis to watch and guard their own provinces/towns, but that make the US look worse: Great Britain has been able to accomplish more then the US with less resources and the same amount of time.
Look for the White House to praise this move in public, but my money says inside they're calling Blair and Co. cowards.
Sure, you can argue that this may mean that Britain's forces have properly trained Iraqis to watch and guard their own provinces/towns, but that make the US look worse: Great Britain has been able to accomplish more then the US with less resources and the same amount of time.
Look for the White House to praise this move in public, but my money says inside they're calling Blair and Co. cowards.
Comments