MORE TROOPS FOR IRAQ?

Wayne Lusvardi writes:

I refer to an article in "Foreign Affairs" headed "What Went Wrong With Iraq": The article is a sobering analysis of the Iraq War that makes the case that the main blunder was the lack of troop deployment by the U.S.

As a Vietnam War vet, I question the notion that what has been needed are more troops and a broader coalition with European forces involved. The experience of Vietnam is clear - the more troops you flood the country with, the more reliant the Iraqis will be on them to fight their war for them. This is what happened in Vietnam. The Vietnamese embraced the trappings of modernity (the motor scooters, the crappy American music, the money that comes from various sorts of prostitution and patronage) but, despite some valiant battles, didn't really want to fight their own war. The Iraqis don't even want to embrace modernity let alone fight for anything beyond their tribe. Flooding the country with more outside troops won't solve that. Like big welfare programs, big warfare programs will only make the populace more dependent. The prospect of a partition such as occurred in Korea and Germany is now becoming more apparent. But will Baghdad be in the Iranian camp or in the Iraqi camp?

*************************************