Send in the Troops. What Troops?

Bush has decided to send and additional 8,200 troops in Afghanistan (3500) and Iraq (4700). This is in addition to the 21,500 troop "surge." I believe it is also in addition to Petraeus' call for 2200 more MP's and 7,000 additional support staff (NY Times). It is estimated that a "build up" will be needed into 2008. Bush has also requested another $3.2 billion in emergency funds for Iraq.

We are less than a month away from the beginning of a 20,000 person "surge" (excluding support forces) and already we are surging those forces by more than 10,000, with estimates of more increases over the next year. This does not look like either a stabilization or a withdrawal from Iraq.

We have been hearing that the Army is "broken" for over two years. Perhaps that is why the "Army is Ordering Injured Troops to Go to Iraq." Troops who were deemed injured and unfit to deploy are now being deployed with the 3rd Infantry Unit from Fort Benning. "Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records." This will be the third deployment for the Division.

I must say that I do not see what good it serves to decimate the armed forces of the United States. Since the neo-conservatives have a clear hope of U.S. imperialism and that requires a functional military, what purpose is served by the current strategy? The only thing that might be served is another goal which is the privatization of all governmental functions (except collecting and dispersing money). Perhaps we are headed for a created necessity of a mercenary force. Almost have of the armed "forces" in Iraq at this point are mercenaries - with CACI and Blackwater being the main contractors. We also know how incredibly expensive that proposition is.

Cheney's scoffing "They can't stop us" in response to the debated about Iraq in the Congress, rings in my ears.