June 16, 2005
Not Enough Troops
“We” have been arguing about whether we have enough troops in Iraq for several years now and I’ve never taken a position one way or the other. I’ve been inclined, instinctively, to think it’s probably true that we didn’t send enough troops. But people who know a lot more about this than I ever will have made at least half-way decent arguments to the contrary. So I stayed out of it. How am I supposed to know how many hundreds of thousands of troops are the right number? I haven't done the right homework to be able to argue about it intelligently.
Niall Ferguson, who has done his homework, makes a pretty damning case against Rumsfeld’s and Wolfowitz’s troop numbers in The Daily Star. He makes a better case than anyone I’ve seen so far. If there’s a counter-argument to this essay, I’d really like to know what it is.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at June 16, 2005 10:33 AMNiall Ferguson is a member of the "we should do nothing" faction. We simply did not have more soldiers to send to Iraq. These people are just looking for any excuse to blast the Bush administration. What is the definition of a sufficient number of troops? Where were we going to get more? Out of thin air? No, these people never wanted us to liberate the Iraqis, and will find one excuse after another to criticize this action. Listen to them carefully---and you should realize that they never wanted the coalition forces to invade Iraq!
Posted by: David Thomson at June 16, 2005 10:57 AMI've seen this analysis before; imho it's total bunk. You can't compare British colonial wars of conquest to democratizing Iraq. We're not trying to conquer Iraq; a million American soldiers would breed massive resentment and not help the security situation one bit. Better comparisons would be post WW II Japan or Germany, and by those measures we are doing pretty well to this point considering the number of casualties on both sides and the progress in setting up self-governance.
The number of troops is about right for the tasks they're doing, which increasingly are training-related. Iraqis are now providing half the forces in 90% of operations, and are begining to take responsibility for entire AOs.
I think there is a terrible lack of perpective among the chattering class on what it takes to win a counterinsurgency, esp. how much time, probably partly driven by how easy the war to remove the regime was by comparison. By this time next year, it seems likely pro-democracy Iraqis will have most of the country pretty well in hand and U.S. troops levels will begin to drop significantly.
Posted by: TallDave at June 16, 2005 11:22 AM
You'll have to judge for yourself if a successful counter-argument is made, but Jason Van Steenwyk just made an argument against those calling for more troops: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2005/06/debunking-not-enough-troops-meme.html
Posted by: Stephen Duncan Jr at June 16, 2005 11:32 AMDavid Thomson: These people are just looking for any excuse to blast the Bush administration.
You obviously don't know who Niall Ferguson is.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 16, 2005 11:36 AMPersonally I found Jason's arguments mostly irrelevant. He does a good job of explaining WHY we couldn't have put more troops in than we did at the beginning of the war, but he never explains how we are supposed to accomplish the mission today with the number of troops we have today. That, it seems to me, is what Ferguson is talking about - that a real Democratization and stabilization of Iraq is simply not feasible, unless you're willing to committ to a massive allocation of time and resources, more massive than what we are currently doing. The throughput argument for example is irrelevant - we did have enough troops to topple Saddam. In the meantime we have had two years to build up the occupation force if we had wanted to, but we haven't. Jason is acting as if all the criticism were from the left, which is simply not true. He's still going on about looters - none of Rumsfeld's critics on the right care about the looters at this point, the problem is do we have enough troops NOW to complete the job. If not what do we do? If the problem is not troop strength, but that our hands are tied by restrictive rules of engagement than there's no point whining about the liberal media. Either have the balls to change the rules of engagement, or stop putting our troops in harms way. Bush & Rumsfeld gambled that we could do this on the cheap - easy takedown and then the Iraqis would take over. Well, it's not working out that way so what's the next step?
Posted by: vanya at June 16, 2005 12:02 PMYeah, as I re-read his, and compared to the current discussion, I realized his argument focused on the question of looting more than the long term questions.
Posted by: Stephen Duncan Jr at June 16, 2005 12:06 PMRemember that the post-war terrorism/insurgency was planned in advance by Saddam and his leadership. It was not something that rose up after the fact due to resentment of the U.S. troops. When did the actions of the terrorists/insurgents start? NOT RIGHT AFTER THE FALL OF BAGHDAD!! So if we had had twice as many troops initially, how would that have made a difference? They would have left after a few months, and the levels would be down to what they are now, and the terrorists/insurgents would have waited a few months to start up their actions, LIKE THEY DID ANYWAY!!!!, and we would be where we are today. The only aspects that would have PERHAPS been helped by additional troops would have been in keeping a lid on the looting right after Baghdad's fall, and in securing some of the weapons' depots sooner. But that would have had a negligible long-term effect on the terrorists/insurgents.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 16, 2005 12:07 PMCheck out the work of Captain Dan Barnard (if it's published). If not, kd5628@usma.edu
Ferguson actually cited (in a NYTimes op-ed 18 April 2004) a paper Barnard gave at a Harvard conference on 19 March 2004.
Barnard got his PhD at Chicago and is now a professor at West Point.
For an interesting reading list on the topic, check out this site (PDF):
http://www.carson.army.mil/UNITS/3RD%20ACR/Regimental%20Education.doc
Michael,
The British colonization of Iraq pitted British forces against nearly the entire population of Iraq. That is not the case today. Those who actively oppose the US forces are also actively opposing the security forces of their own country. Their numbers are a vast minority of the total population. So the 179 to 1 ratio is WAY overstated.
Further, this analysis states a difference between the ruthlessness and punitive actions byt the British and a lack of such actions by the coalition forces in Iraq today. I submit this is exactly why the US forces have the ability to work among, if not active support of, the majority of Iraqi citizens. Also, the British government invested no resources to re-establishing any sort of infrastructure or rasing the quality of life in Iraq. USAID alone has spent over $5 billion to date on sewage treatment plants, schools, water and electricity, etc.
Granted, the insurgency and terrorism were grossly underestimated. This is in large part because it was never anticipated that other nations would invest so heavily in assisting the insurgents, nor was it felt that AQ would have any impact in Iraq, as it was thought that AQ would not exist anymore by this time. The mistake made by the military planners of this conflict was to think this would be a surgical application of high technology "shock and awe" resources followed by a complete capitulation of the Ba'athists. They didn't think enough about the Fedayeen Saddam lunatics - we'd never run into those cats before. That they would join forces with AQ was even more "out of left field".
What this analysis ignores is that Iraqi security forces are already taking on more direct roles in the security of their cities. They are manning more of the checkpoints, making more of the sweeps, with coalition units acting as quick reaction forces in support of Iraqi units. It used to be US coalition forces acting in a QRF capacity for other coalition forces and dragging Iraqi units - or parts of them - along witht them.
Look at the timetable for Normandy. It took weeks to clear the hedgerows - but the timetable said something like 4 days. After the beachhead was secured it took months to get to the Rhine - the timetable said a few weeks. Even with the Red Ball Express, we had soldiers without beans, bullets and blankets. We had portions of 3 entire divisions completely surrounded by the enemy.
This guy you cite has NOT done his homework, he has plagerized a meme and propped it up with a few irrelevant facts and more anecdotal "evidence" that also leads no credence to his claims.
I am going to suggest we grit our teeth, tighten our belts, and open our hearts to our soldiers. They pay the price for our "wobbliness" back home. History indicates that when we bear down back home, we win and when we get all mushy kneed back home, we lose. That's all the data and analysis I need, but I like to keep things simple - you guys make your own call.
My .02 - probably .0002 after inflation, but that is another story.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at June 16, 2005 01:02 PMJoel,
Exactly right!
Generally those who said that we would need more forces, also said that there would be thousands of casualties in the initial stages. And of course, most of those who opposed the war (at least those who opposed it in print/on TV) also claimed that there would be millions of refugees, mass starvations, cholera epidemics, etc. None of which has come true. Which of course shows how much value their prognostications now should have.
One additional point to add to your post, is that we were not aware of the drastic state of the Iraqi infrastructure prior to the war. That has been the biggest reason for the power/sewage/etc. problems, not the terrorists.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 16, 2005 01:09 PMIt seems as if everyone's an expert these days. Especially reporters.
A resonable individual would think those persons charged with the responsibility of warfare know what's best. Better yet, they would know what it would take to win. One would think those Officers whose "boots are on the ground" would know what's required and, if needed, request additional troops.
But they haven't.
I recall one General (retired) who commented on CNN that additional troops were necessary. But most, if not all military strategists agree that a smaller, efficient fighting force is sufficient.
I have seen several live interviews, read many a soldiers blog but I have yet to find a single instance from those with "boots on the ground" for their desire for additional troops.
Being a rational being, since I've not been to Iraq, nor have witnessed the ongoings there, I can only base my conclusion from what I've read.
A smaller, more intelligent fighting force coupled with good ground intelligence is the key to winning the battles there.
Finally, continuing to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis is more important and one task we can clearly see has been UNDERREPORTED in the MSM.
This transformation of Iraq will be done with Iraqi AND coalition forces working together hand-in-hand, not by reporters.
Posted by: Michael at June 16, 2005 01:21 PMOf course whining about how the war wasn't fought right is a cheap way to let the pro-war peanut gallery of the hook. A productive next step would be a concession speech entitled something like "The War was a Mistake" from Totten and the rest of the pro-war liberals.
Posted by: drydock at June 16, 2005 01:22 PM1. The planners of this war discarded the possibility that there would A) be an armed insurgence (we'll be met with flowers la, la, la,).
2. The planners of this war didn't suppose that Saddam would have the intelligence to know he would be outgunned and so planned a damn effective insurgency that was well armed.
3. The planners of this war stated that close ties to Al-Q was the reason for invasion... should they not have expected an armed Al-Q contingent? (likewise, if they knew that Saddam was not buddies with Osama (as the Downing St/ Memos indicate, if rnot forgeries) then why the hell didn't they figure that Al-Q and Baathists would fall back on "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend")
4. The planners of this war did not plan for the worst-case scenario.
Those four points alone, should be enough for any American who cares about the troops, innocent Iraqis and the stability of world politics to seriously question the planners (not particularly GWB, but definately Rummy and Friends). We may disagree about the intelligence, legality, constitutionality, and morality of what we are doing... but there is no doubt that our leaders had their head in a bucket when they planned this. The war is not going according to schedule or budget. If this had been a project in any corporation, someone would have lost their job... probably lots of someone's. But, I suppose thats what patriotism, partisanism and nationalism are for.
"Someone made a big mistake."
"You're just anti-american."
"But they planned for a couple months and a billion dollars..."
"You sick Commie Pinko! How dare you!"
"But the war is still on."
"God damn it, you just want the terrorists to win, don't you?!"
"No, I'd like the terrorists to die, I'd also like to discuss the fact that the war was poorly planned."
"There's no use in looking back! You must be anti-semite!"
What in the name of Great Googlie Mooglie, is wrong with you people? It's not unpatriotic to expect the men in charge to know their job. It's not communistic, sadistic nor fascist to critique a botched war. (Of course, the Islamist extremists aren't fascists either, but that doesn't stop the namecalling...)
Sigh
Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at June 16, 2005 01:44 PMWhat war has ever been run perfectly? None.
What enemy has ever been completely predictable? None.
Planning for the worst-case scenario? What exactly is that?
Who has said no mistakes were made by the military? No one.
Who has claimed that people have said no mistakes were made by the military? The squirrel.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 16, 2005 01:53 PMThe murder rate in 1990 in NYC was 6 per day in a City of 8 million. Adjusted to the population of Iraq that would be 19.5 Murders per day to have the same murder rate in Iraq as NYC in 1990.
The "insurgent" murder rate in Iraq is approximately 25 per day. Slightly higher than the NYC murder rate.
Many of the murders in NYC were organized crime and gang related. Most of the murders in Iraq are Organized crime and terrorist gang related.
The murder rate in NYC was reduced to 2 per day by "Good Policing" rather than doubling or tripling the size of the police force.
In Vietnam, the US had 500,000 soldiers and managed to kill more than 1 million insurgents and the outcome was really poor.
In Iraq, the coalition has 160,000 soldiers and focuses on capturing insurgents by developing intelligence on terrorist gangs and organized crime and arresting them.
The reality is, getting below the current insurgent "murder rate" in Iraq is a function of good policing rather than increasing the size of the occupying force.
Posted by: Solder's Dad at June 16, 2005 02:05 PMRun perfectly and completely missed the boat are two different things... we're not talking about a "whoops" or a "miss" We're 2 years into a war that would "take months" according to the planners. We are BILLIONS of dollars into a war that would cost "less than a billion dollars" according to planners. People who talked about insurgency and guerilla warfare were marginalized, we're now neck deep in a guerilla insurgency.
The isn't a war that "wasn't perfect", this is a war that was botched, from start to wherever we are now.
What enemy has been completely predictible? I dunno, lots of people including myself predicted that the Sunnis would incite an insurgency, that they would use guerilla tactics and that they would kill their own countrymen if it furthered their agenda.
No enemy is completely predictible... but this one has been rather straightforward.
Planning for the Worst Case Scenario means that a group of intelligent people sit down and ask the hard questions about what might possibly go wrong. Then they figure out how they can be prepared to handle the 'more likely' scenarios of things going wrong. This is standard Risk assesment stuff, if you don't understand it, thats not my problem.
Who has claimed that people have said no mistakes were made by the military? The squirrel.
You know, I reread that post... I would like you to show me where I stated that... or if you care to retract it, thats fine too.
Posted by: Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord at June 16, 2005 02:15 PMIf there’s a counter-argument to this essay, I’d really like to know what it is.
My counter-argument: Why is the U.S. in Iraq?
I've posted an anniversary update: Why is the U.S. STILL in Iraq?.
The update is the introduction to my current work-in-progress, Beyond Iraq in the Global War on Terror. I plan to finish the series by the end of this month.
Posted by: Solomon2 at June 16, 2005 02:20 PMThe critical question is have US post-war planning and execution met reasonable levels of competence? As far as I can tell is not really and troop numbers are immaterial to the real problems which boil down to cultural issues - the qualities needed in post invasion Iraq are mostly those the US doesn't do well.
Posted by: Michael Farris at June 16, 2005 02:26 PMI think the "not enough troops" argument is silly. For example, if a company's products aren't selling well does only increasing the sales force help the situation? Probably not. Maybe its the product, or the company strategy, or the selling techniques, or many, many other issues and causes. More troops equals success? Nonsense. Remember when the Israeli's kicked butt in the 6 day war against a much larger force? Strategy and tactics.
It's strategy and tactics that will win or lose the war. The US has around a 14 to 1 ratio with the insurgents, the US has superior equipment - and with more and more Iraqi forces being trained the ratio should increase. The US military has been and will continue to change their strategy and tactics in Iraq - hopefully fast enough to counter the insurgency.
The war started on the wrong foot - our friend Turkey screwed up all the US plans by blocking the 4th infantry from coming into Iraq from the north. In my wild speculations I think this hurt the war effort from day one - the strategies all had to be changed ad hoc and the 4th was supposed to enter the Sunni triangle which may have helped suppress the insurgency from the early stages - no way to tell if that's true or not. It certainly wouldn't have hurt.
The military is designed to break things and kill people which they did very efficiently defeating Saddam. It is not designed to be a police force. Because of this the military continually changes strategies and tactics. Have they made mistakes? Lots. Is Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, etc. responsible? Sure. Expecting the Iraqis to be liberated in months with no insurgency? Pure fantasy by Bush and his advisors. I would think they should have resigned by now, their idea that the war would last a few months was terrible to the point of being incompetent. Hopefully the military can get their act together soon enough to win this thing. Time will tell.
One last thing - it's really up to the Iraqis. If they want to make their country stable and good then they are going to have to suck it up and do a lot of hard, risky work themselves. They need to take ownership of their country. Otherwise, it will likely dissolve into an ugly civil war where everyone loses.
Posted by: markytom at June 16, 2005 02:28 PM<""Someone made a big mistake."
"You're just anti-american."
"But they planned for a couple months and a billion dollars..."
"You sick Commie Pinko! How dare you!"
"But the war is still on."
"God damn it, you just want the terrorists to win, don't you?!"
"No, I'd like the terrorists to die, I'd also like to discuss the fact that the war was poorly planned."
"There's no use in looking back! You must be anti-semite!" >
Then please explain what you were implying by those statements.
You're just playing the "I never liked Pres Bush" hindsight game now. I'm sure you did make all those predictions. So did a lot of other people. A lot of other people also predicted that the Arab street would rise up in massive riots and throw out any government allied with the U.S. if we invaded. And that hundreds of thousands, possible millions, of Afghanis would die in the winter from starvation. And thousands of U.S. troops would be killed in Afghanistan. Looked what happened to the British and the Soviets there, for heaven's sake!! And that there would be thousands of U.S. dead in the initial invasion of OIF, millions of Iraqi refugees, and widespread cholera, typhoid, etc. epidemics there. And that there would never be free elections, or cooperation between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. ANd that there were no connections between the French, the Russians, and Iraqi oil that would affect the Security COuncil voting. Of course, you would never admit now to having predicted any of those, would you?
You just refuse to admit that overall, OIF has been amazingly successful so far. FAR, FAR more successful than any of you who initially criticized it dreamed it would be.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 16, 2005 02:37 PMWe could have defeated Saadam's army with a lot fewer troops. Hell, the nations in our coalition besides the U.S., U.K. (and Israel) could have defeated Saadam's army.
What we can't do is to create from scratch a Arab/Kurd/secular/Muslim nation with a pro-USA, pro-Israeli foreign policy.
You can't rebuild a country that never really existed in the first place, except at gunpoint.
This is the real difference between the occupation of Iraq and the occupation of Japan and Germany post WW2.
In retrospect, THIS seems SO obvious. Yet, I recall no one, liberal or conservative, really making this point, pre-invasion. All I remember hearing was the "Iraqi people are smart and educated, why can't they create a democracy?", from Cheney and others.
The main problem is that "Iraq" as a nation exists only in quotes.
Posted by: markus rose at June 16, 2005 02:57 PMNiall Ferguson had an article in Vanity Fair that wasn't too complimentary to Bush. Not that it means he's out to 'get' anyone or this administration, but it was awfully Vanity Fairish, if you get my drift.
I heard him speak about a year or so ago and he did this wierd thing where he talked about the 'Bushies' in a really sneering voice. Or at least it sounded sneering to my American ears; maybe it's just a cultural thing? Like how all BBC presenters sound like they are lecturing you, and boy, you'd better be good.
And I didn't like his suggestion at the time that America would be better off in Iraq if it had the colonial experience of the British civil service. Given that I was born in India, I didn't like that idea one single bit.
Posted by: MD at June 16, 2005 03:47 PMThe "insurgent" murder rate in Iraq is approximately 25 per day. Slightly higher than the NYC murder rate.
Okay, so what about the non-insurgent murder rate? We've been informed that basic order is not being kept and that kidnappings and murders are distressingly common. Since one of our duties as an occupying power is to keep the peace, how are we doing on that score?
Anyways, General Shinseki said that we'd need many more soldiers to get the job done back in 2002. He was pilloried by Wolfowitz and pushed into early retirement. Generally speaking, if one is attacked by Wolfowitz in the press and fired by the Bush Administration, odds are excellent that one is completely right.
Posted by: Kimmitt at June 16, 2005 03:54 PMKimmitt,
As usual, you are ignoring significant facts. The biggest issue with Shinseki and his early retirement is that he wouldn't let go of the Crusader artillery product, and was very public on it. That is primarily what prompted his forced departure, not his desire for more troops.
We have enough troops in Iraq to do establish order in the traditional manner - leveling cities, slaughtering populations in order to make examples of them, laying waste to entire regions.
The undertaking we are engaged in is unprecedented in the annals of warfare. We aren't there to rule. We didn't beat the the enemy population down to dust (it wouldn't have been that long a fall, granted) and we have certainly failed to pursue the enemy wherever he might be found - Saudi, Jordan, and Syria, Iran.
We bet that democracy would be siezed by the indigenous population in a manner that would overcome the deadly determination of the former regime holdouts and their fellow travellers in the other cliques and regimes in the region.
We also bet that we would have the will to make it work.
I believe that we may have failed on that end.
The Left in this country can't seem to win elections. They are establishing a better record at losing wars for their own self-abosrbed motives.
Posted by: TmjUtah at June 16, 2005 04:58 PMMarkus: Actually, Christopher Hitchens made precisely that point -- and he considered it an argument in favor of war. Here is a November 7, 2002 article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2073634) in which he noted that the evils of an unstable post-Saddam regime are inevitable, whether the US intervened or not, and so the choice was not one of regime change or no regime change but, as he put it "to experience these consequences with an American or international presence or watch them unfold as if they were none of our business."
Posted by: Sean P at June 16, 2005 06:00 PMWonderful morale-boosting piece for the "insurgents", but someone should tell the good Professor to read more Yglesias and Sullivan and less Atrios. He's got the "just the facts, ma'am" part down pat. Now he needs to work a little harder on the "more in sorrow than in anger" and "this hurts me more than you" aspects.
Smarmy, pseudoreasonable articles transparently intended to bring about the end the writer pretends to deplore anger me more than the honest opposition does.
And there are occasions, deep in the night, when I think the right thing to do would be surrender. Ask the Saudis to send us a Mufti to make ready for the Caliph. I'll be fine -- as a conservative Christian I'm "people of the book," so I can get by with paying the dhimmi tax and keeping my mouth shut. Be fun to watch all the oh-so-reasonable lefties go under the knife.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke: Wonderful morale-boosting piece for the "insurgents", but someone should tell the good Professor to read more Yglesias and Sullivan and less Atrios
Oh, please. Ferguson is a hawkish conservative at the Hoover Institution.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 16, 2005 07:26 PMso where do we get the additional troops, Michael? recruitment is down. will the french and the germans finally contribute some? will zapatero and gloria macapagal arroyo want to send troops back to iraq?
Posted by: john marzan at June 16, 2005 07:55 PMWhether or not we had enough troops in Iraq or have enough troops in Iraq now is a moot point. We have all the troops that we CAN have, in Iraq.
If you study the force structure, you will quickly realize, there ARE no more troops to be had. At any given time, one third must be "resting" stateside, one third must be training, and one third must be in Iraq. That means, if we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, we need 300,000 more resting and training. We ONLY HAVE about 499,000 in the Army and 175,000 in the Marines. And we have to staff Germany (50,000), Okinawa (several thousand Marines), South Korea (25,000), the Balkans (2,000), Afghanistan (20,000) and Kuwait (30,000) as well.
We have about 500,000 Guard troops, and about a third of them have served in Iraq. The reasons should be obvious to anyone who has studied the issue.
Where are you going to get more troops FROM?
Source: Parameters
It's real easy to sit in an armchair and complain about "not enough troops in Iraq". It's a whole different matter to actually figure out where to get them from without burning everyone out and destroying morale.
Posted by: antimedia at June 16, 2005 09:03 PMForce multipliers like LRAS, body armor, night vision, precision munitions, and close air support make 100,000 modern U.S. troops able to do more than a million WW II soldiers could dream of. Also, the size force Niall contemplates would require such massive logistical support that it would further burden the strained local infrastructure, generate massive local resentment, create a lot more targets for suicide bombers, and it's hard to see what more they could really do than is being done now. It's not like we're being overrun by vast numbers of insurgents; our main problem with defeating the insurgency isn't manpower, it's finding the insurgents, because they won't come out and fight (they've learned they always lose a straight fight regardless of numbers). A nonsectarian native Iraqi force, loyal to democratically elected leaders, that can better gather intel and dig insurgents out, is probably the best solution available in an imperfect situation.
Posted by: TallDave at June 16, 2005 09:14 PMIf we had destroyed the insurgency immediately, the global supporters of terrorism would have stopped backing that front and moved their efforts elsewhere. As it stands, the bulk of anti-western terrorist funding and activity is being directed towards Iraq, where we have prepared troops and a secure logistics chain.
We have found and fixed the enemy's attention and are routinely capturing them. We have grasped them firmly by the nose and are kicking their asses soundly. This process is not always pretty and it is by no means perfect, but we are destroying the enemy's capacity and will to fight.
I would rather fight this fight in the hot, dirty, stinky, and distant place it currently resides than wait for it to come to my home.
Posted by: Patrick Lasswell at June 16, 2005 09:41 PMMichael,
I seem to recall reading this same article, or something very similar, some while ago. Maybe The Star picked it up from somewhere else. Couple of things:
1) Niall's specialty is economic history. His book on WWI, The Pity of War, was rather controversial, or rather a throwback to the views of Shaw and Russell, so I tend to consider him a zoomy young (41) academic historian who has controversial opinions. Fun, but hard to say how valid they are.
2) The article is quite superficial and simply chooses a few negative quotes here and there. It does not in any way analyse the facts on the ground and I doubt that he knows what they are.
3) I read a selection of writings by Gertrude Bell on the rebellion of 1920. I saw little resemblence to current events, aside from the fact that there are still Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds in the country. I think Niall invoking the rebellion without carefully noting the differences is rather silly.
4) Historians in general tend to be no better than anyone else when making prescriptions. Perhaps worse, as action is outside their training.
5) Keegan's opinions might be worth something, but I don't know what he thinks on this subject.
That said, we will see, no? I think if the military wanted more, they would be sending more, rather than drawing down the numbers as they are doing.
OT: here is a bit of news from Uzbekistan via Winds of Change, link.
Posted by: chuck at June 16, 2005 09:45 PMFerguson is wrong about a few things. First, we should not stay in Iraq long-term. Niall thinks it is proper for the U.S. to grab land and hold it long-term. If you were to ask him he would recomend a twenty year stay in Baghdad. That is not an option and it shouldn't be. The second, the United States is not an Empire. We should not let any European drag us down that path.
My choice for diplomacy would be based around the Aussie's instead of the Brit's.
Posted by: Mike#3or4 at June 17, 2005 12:54 AMWe had plenty of troops to boot Saddam, fast. We did, proving the nay-sayers "tens of thousands to die", and "quagmire" anti-war folk totally wrong.
We do not have, and CAN NOT have enough troops to force the Iraqis to take care of themselves. Or to force the Shiite & Kurd pro-democracy Iraqis to stop Sunni terrorist murders AND promote human rights.
We are still occupying Germany-- 60 years later; but the most relevant comparison is Kosovo.
See this link about Kosovo after 3 June 1999, when Milosovic gave up under very credible threat of massive UK and US invasion (to occur in Sept). UK invasion planning, including 6 options, had been done by 1998 -- this is interesting with the silly Downing Street Memo now about.
The point is that Kosovo liberation/ occupation has not yet been successful, 6 years later.
It is NOT more troops, but more TIME that is needed. And no budget (1), nor more troops (2), nor better planning (3), nor even better publicity (4), can make it faster. Probably.
The time is needed for "success", as well as clear specification of what success means--A democratic Iraq, ruled by elected Iraqi leaders, with Iraqi police/ military forces mostly preventing terrorist murders. And clearly winning.
Had Bush/Rumsfeld thought we needed more troops, it's "easy" to get them: more budget, higher soldier pay (for ALL fighting soldiers). LOTS more. Introduce an unpopular gas tax to pay for more funding for more troops; or some other tax (VAT, like slow-growth Europe?) yechh; don't like taxes. Prolly lose the 2004 election.
***Biggest missing troops: Arabic speakers ***
It's been known since Bush I Desert Storm, the US needs more folk who can speak conversational Arabic, to talk to natives in their own language.
[Michael, any progress on your Arabic?]
Better planning? There should have been municipal elections, using ration cards, earlier -- and Bremer should have given those elected more budget to spend on what they thought was most important. Too much "aid- paternalism", and likely pro-Halliburton/ US (Rep contributor) company bias in dividing up the reconstruction contracts.
Democracy, and using bugetary authority with responsibility, takes practice. And elections, campaigns, and re-elections. And election failures -- TIME.
Better publicity, more Chrenkoff "good news" to balance the MSM body bag counting ecstatic gloom mongering, would reduce the World Opinion against the US. If world opinion matters (like its big success in Darfur, with no genocide but the ICC indicting 51 criminals???), the anti-American PR is damaging.
Niall is careful to agree that TIME is needed, as well as more Troops, but as David T first said, his words will be used by "people [who] are just looking for any excuse to blast the Bush administration."
I don't like the fact that Iraqis are so slow to fight, kill, die, and kill innocents, for freedom. But since they've never really lived it, they can't be expected to love it so much.
My post a year ago (on why NOT Occupying Fallujah I was prolly right): Harry Potter, (no) Help for Iraqi People
The USA can NOT win -- only the Iraqis can win. Our job is to make the democratic Iraqis win, instead of the death squad Iraqis.
Time. Iraqi experience. Iraqi work. Iraqi heroes. Iraq for Iraqis.
The war is NOT about the Dems or Reps in the US White House. But selfish US-only thinking Leftists act like it's just more domestic politics.
More troops, which won't help the Iraqis develop democracy any sooner, but will cost more in both budget and American lives, makes Americans less likely to support a longer Liberation operation.
Sugar maples take 40 years of growth before any maple syrup sap can be collected. Had I planted some 10 years ago, like I thought of doing, I'd still be waiting. More or less sun, more or less water, more or less fertilizer. Maybe in perfect conditions 39 or 38 years. 40 years -- mostly time.
So Bush is right to minimize the lives lost and budget costs, in a tradeoff -- because US voters are too impatient. Secure Iraq democracy can't be built in one election cycle.
Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 17, 2005 03:48 AMYa know, I brought this up a while ago (maybe even on this blog) about the British experience in the 1920's.
The British had the 'same' number of troops then?
And the coalition has the same now?
And the difference between what a soldier can do now and then is exactly what? (Hint: you can do more now than you could then).
Ferguson is only convincing to people who know no history.
Posted by: Eric Blair at June 17, 2005 05:22 AMI'm honestly puzzled...more troops to do exactly what? Seriously, what would they do?
Posted by: RickW at June 17, 2005 06:23 AMI made that point as well, Rick.
If we knew who and where the insurgents were, the forces there now would be more than sufficient to go out and round them up.
Posted by: TallDave at June 17, 2005 07:01 AMYet another discussion of troop numbers, from CounterColumn.
Posted by: chuck at June 17, 2005 07:06 AMI just returned from Iraq last month. Riding through Baghdad is dicey; it is of course a risk. But you pass scores of thousands of people in a 6 or 7 mile trip across town, and it isn't like they're all taking pot-shots at you. In fact, it hardly ever happens; most trips are uneventful. But even a 3 humvee convoy is highly disruptive to normal traffic...cars either get out of the way or get ventilated. What would more soldiers do? Provide more targets? When insurgent cells are identified and located, it doesn't take a brigade to eliminate it. Larger scale operations are being handled quite effectively by Marines and soldiers. Should we just man the street corners with soldiers? Set up more roadblocks?There are already Iraqi security forces doing this now. My question wasn't sarcastic, I wonder what people who think we don't have enough soldiers there think we should do with them if they did show up.
Posted by: RickW at June 17, 2005 08:00 AMThanks for the link to that excellent column, Chuck. I'm sure the NYT will be willing to give it equal time, right?
Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 17, 2005 08:22 AMThe problem is not a question of number of troops. Quite simply to put more troops in through Kuwait was physically impossible. Yet, there were some 40,000 US Army Soldiers whose equipment was sitting in ships running circles in the Mediterranean Ocean. I spent the early weeks of the war cooling my heels in Fort Hood and watching a lot of CNN while cursing the Turks.
Our first defeat in this was a diplomatic defeat, when Turkey turned down a hefty bribe to let Task Force Ironhorse, built around the 4th Infantry Division, operate from their soil. An extra 40,000 troops moving in from the north would have made a significant difference. We would have secured Tikrit much sooner, and more importantly, soon after we crossed the Iraqi border, the Syrian border would have been blocked. The Ba'athist rats who fled the sinking ship of the Iraqi state would have found themselves scooped up instead of having a safe route into the sanctuary from which the insurgents operate today.
But the Turks rejected their bribe at a late date. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to move the rest of the forces into position. Everything else was a go, and in the opinion of the commander on the ground it was possible to complete the mission with the forces he had remaining. Faced with the treachery of our supposed ally, what were we to do? Strike our tents, go home, and sulk? Or do what we did after 1st Manassas, Kasserine Pass, or the destruction of Task Force Smith, and drive on regardless of the initial defeat.
Posted by: John M. Atkinson at June 17, 2005 09:39 AMI agree with Joel that we are not fighting the entire country, and that's a significant difference that Ferguson misses. Iraqis believe the insurgents are mostly local thugs and foreigners, too.
Also, the ratio of Iraqis to coalition should be reduced, I believe, because of the technological superiority of the coalition forces, bringing in asymmetry again. I'm not a military expert, but I suspect that the 1920 British and their enemy were more closely equal in firepower, intelligence gathering capability, etc.
Posted by: Patricia at June 17, 2005 10:03 AMRemember the saying: amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
Given that AFAIK we're already stretching the Reserves and Guard to near their limits (represented by the uses of stop-orders to keep troop levels up) to provide the logisitical support needed for the current number of troops, it'd be impossible to deploy significantly more troops and maintain any kind of rotation of units. That's doable for short-term "surges," as I think was done around the elections, but not for any long-term deployment.
One problem the Pentagon and Congress will have to confront is what to do about the supply functions which were shifted to Reserve & Guard units during the "Peace Dividend" drawdowns of the '90s. The model was Gulf War I, where deployments would be only for the short-term, but we've seen that it doesn't work well where the mission is long-term. There may be some relief as the Army is shifted from emphasizing the division-level to the brigade-level (needing less logistical support), but the hard choice will be whether to permanently renounce any long-term missions regardless of the nation's security needs, or to devote serious money to enlarging the active force & shifting back many of those logistical functions to active units.
(or totally farm them out to civilian contractors on an as-needed basis, the Balkans model as it were, but that has its own crop of problems)
Posted by: tagryn at June 17, 2005 01:13 PM100,000? 200,000? 500,000?
It really doesn't matter. You say on the one hand that you're there to liberate the iraqi people, and on the other, that its a tactic to attract all the anti-american forces in the region, so you don't have to fight them in the states. These are mutually exclusive goals.
You guys know something about military tactics. And with no clear goals you have no chance of winning. None.
I dont see clear objectives.
So, like vietnam, regardless of whether you have 500,000 or 100,000, without a goal you are screwed. Its only a matter of time.
Please leave now.
Just curious, Michael, and I may have missed it, but why don't you enlist? Isn't the cut off age 38? You seem healthy enough to travel a lot; go hiking, etc. Just curious about why you haven't, since you support the attack on Iraq.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 21, 2005 07:00 AMMichael:
I haven't had time to read all of the comments, here, so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.
Ferguson's statistical approach is inapt for one very important reason: It assumes that the entire Iraqi population needs to be pacified. As you know, that simply isn't the case. Vast areas of the south and the Kurdish region have been largely pacified and business goes on without much need for the ministrations of Coalition forces.
If you reduced the population figures to represent the Anbar province and perhaps one or two other hotspots, the troop ratios would probably come out much closer to Ferguson's recommendation.
Posted by: SWLiP at June 21, 2005 07:43 AMSP - if you're going to try and paint MT with the "chickenhawk" slur, at least be upfront about it. As always, 'chickenhawk' remains an ad hominem attack, which attacks the opponent rather than addressing what he is saying, and is hence invalid. It is also hypocritical for opponents of the Iraq war to be making it unless they were against the Afghan war as well: if the proponents of 'chickenhawk' demand the enlistment of all Iraq supporters, then they should back up their support of the ongoing Afghan operation by enlisting as well. Otherwise, its just another double-standard.
And yes, you did miss it. Michael's explained his medical history elsewhere, but since chickenhawk's an invalid argument anyway, its not worth addressing.
Posted by: tagryn at June 21, 2005 09:58 AMAs I said, "Michael, and I may have missed it, but why don't you enlist?" so I did miss it.
But as for the general chickhawk argument, why is that invalid? For instance, Jonah Goldberg comes to mind; the Bush daughters; etc. etc. If able-bodied people support the war so much, why don't they enlist? Most of the country enlisted or supported the effort in WWII (except for Ronald Reagan who contributed by making movies); why not now? And, also just curious, but does Michael help the military out in other ways? Some volunteer work? Civilian type stuff to promote the war effort?
For me, the war is a total crock of shit; a hoodwink on the American public, at best. But if I believed in it, I would be doing everything I could.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 21, 2005 10:51 AMIt seems to me that Michael is contributing in the best way he knows how -- by writing eloquently on the issues that matter to him and publishing his writing for others to read, for free.
It doesn't mean that everyone will be persuaded. The depravity and intellectual dishonesty of the looney left knows no bounds.
Posted by: SWLiP at June 21, 2005 11:12 AMI would add that Michael has definitely put his money where his mouth is by covering the democracy movement in Lebanon, which is clearly part of the overall strategic picture in the WoT.
You can't buy that kind of integrity.
Posted by: SWLiP at June 21, 2005 11:14 AMOf course, of course, all the better, more noble, even, to write about war than put your life and limb on the line (and the family, as well). I would hope that Mr. Totten doesn't describe his effort in these terms, because that absolutely defines the chickenhawk, cheering on others to fight in your place.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 21, 2005 11:29 AMHeh. Flimsy straw man, you have there. I guess anybody who advocated ending slavery in 1861 who didn't join the Union Army had no right to speak out.
Anyone who advocated ridding the world of Hitler and Tojo had no right to speak out unless they joined the military.
In other words, abandon the battlefield of public opinion to the Leftists, unless you join the military.
And even if you do, expect to be castigated, reviled, and generally spat upon by the morons whose freedoms you are defending.
Another reason why the "chickenhawk" argument doesn't fit so well in this conflict us because in the Civil War, WWII, and Vietnam we had a draft, whereas now we have an all-professional military whose morale is quite high and who only ask that we support their mission.
Moreover, the military professionals would probably tell you that one effective supporter of their mission in the media is worth at least a platoon on the ground.
Posted by: SWLiP at June 21, 2005 12:16 PMSP - look up "ad hominem" in google, there's any number of good logic sites which will explain in detail why it's invalid.
So, we can assume you were and remain opposed to the Afghanistan war, since you haven't enlisted to support the troops there, yes?
Posted by: tagryn at June 21, 2005 04:20 PMAd hominem means to attack the person not the statements. I merely wondered why those who urge on this "war" don't join up if they are able to; don't urge their children to join up; don't participate if they can't join up (volunteering, etc.) If they believe in this so much, why not join up? What is ad hominem about that? You remember that old adage from your childhood, "do as I say not as I do"? You people seem to feel that the Iraq venture is some sort of centerpiece of the "war on terror" yet...have you signed up? Where's the stampede of voters who voted for the idiot?
As for Afghanistan, frankly, while in retrospect it was not a bad idea (although, like everything the idiot and his crew does, very poorly thought out and not a success by any means), if Bush said the sun rises in the East I'd look it up first. I thoroughly believe Islam is the greatest danger we face now; but that has nothing to do with Iraq and the attack on Iraq is and will be the single worst military venture we've ever tried. All it has proven is that the "world's greatest fighting force" can be easily held back by a ragtag group of fanatics. It is bringing us to our knees. The idea of it and its execution are stupid beyond belief and proceed from some sort of fanatical religious belief (the higher father crap). But that's me.
Michael and his ilk are generally young and definitely can participate. Why don't they? (and again, if Michaal does serve in some capacity, I am sorry, regarding him alone. But the rest of the wingnut chickenhawks....
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 21, 2005 08:29 PMIt is ad hominem because a particular person's reasons for enlisting or not doesn't have relevance as to whether their arguments re: Iraq are persuasive, which is what their statements should be judged by. The validity and reliability of a statement isn't affected by who is saying it.
Afghanistan: By your own standard, those who advocate a war have an obligation to back it up by serving. You say that you "thoroughly believe Islam is the greatest danger we face now," yet when the opportunity came to help serve in overthrowing one of the most oppressive Islamist governments in the world, did you follow your own advice regarding how others should back up their beliefs?
Somehow, arguing that Afghanistan was an exception because it was done by Bush sure sounds like saying that you're dispensed from living up to your own standards unless its just the right war, for the right reasons by the right people, done in the right way, and at the right time.
And that simply doesn't cut it.
Posted by: tagryn at June 21, 2005 09:44 PMYou are a little off concerning ad hominem. And a person's choice to enlist or not is completely relevant to arguments in support of a war. I find it telling that you (and others) seem to get annoyed when the mere question of service was raised. If a person argues against the attack on Iraq, but joins the army to fight there, that doesn't in any way vitiate his arguments, but it does call his character into question. I am not calling the chickenhawks' arguments into question (in this discussion); ad hominem would be if I thought challenging their character would somehow rebut their positions.But I am calling their honesty and decency as people as people into question. Yes, there are other ways to support the military besides writing in blogs: you can join support groups, work in the VA, apply to work as a civilian, go to Iraq as a civilian. I'm sure there are more. But it strikes me as cowardice to promote a war you are unwilling to take part in (except from a very safe distance). As for the particular case of Michael Totten, I do not know what he does with his non-blog-related time. Perhaps he supports the troops in many ways and just doesn't talk about it. But my original question does stand. (And, by thw way, a similar question was asked of Scott McCellen in the WH daily briefing: What members of the Bush clan serve in the armed forces? Scott, of course, couldn't answer that (too embarrassing).
As for Afghanistan: First, I am way beyond the military age; second, while the attack was not a bad idea, like everything Bush touches, it has turned to shit. His motives are murky, probably even to him. And third, I do not try for high visibility advocacy.
And one more thing: in a time when the military is lacking recruits and scrapping the bottom of the barrel to get guys, wouldn't joining be a great idea, you know, as a support of the hockey puck and his war? It's not like they have more enlistees than they know what to do with, right?
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 22, 2005 05:12 AM"...calling their honesty and decency as people as people into question" and accusing others of "cowardice" are ad hominem attacks, as it regards the character of the person instead of their arguments. Whether the person is a scumbag or not doesn't have relevance as to whether what they argue about Iraq is valid, for example.
I do find attempts at character assassination to be out of line, as well as just rude, hence my irritation. As well, the act of pointing fingers at others for not serving, while not being in any danger of being called on to make the same sacrifice, is fairly remarkable in its audaciousness.
Posted by: tagryn at June 22, 2005 08:45 AMAnd I think it is far more outrageous to urge a military action that one is able but unwilling to take part in. In other words, better other people die for my cause than me, right?
Posted by: Seymour Paine at June 22, 2005 11:01 AMGiven the disingenuous matter in which you've approached this whole thread, I think you'd do better worrying about your own intellectual integrity than casting about aspersions about others', frankly.
Your initial inquiry saying you wanted to know because you were "just curious" certainly has been given the lie by your subsequent comments. Obviously your motivations for asking were, shall we say, less than noble.
Posted by: tagryn at June 22, 2005 03:56 PMI hope Seymour Paine is not equating Hersh and Thomas. A liar vs. a revolutionary combined into an idiots blog post.
Posted by: Mike#3or4 at June 22, 2005 11:19 PMwww.best-casino-online.biz
online casino
This thread is a perfect example of catering to the lowest common denominator. I was really enjoying reading the different arguments and, in general, the high quality of thought in light of current events in Iraq (i.e. initial troop levels and the after-effects of that decision).
Then one guy comes in, backhandedly changes the subject, and the orginal topic is no longer discussed.
Sorry, but could we please get back on topic?
Posted by: TF6S at August 1, 2005 04:52 PMsklep internetowy kamery cyfrowe sony panasonic minidv Kamery cyfrowe, telewizory plazmowe lgjvc Telewizory plazmowe. eeeby sony panasonic eeeby. eeeby sony panasonic eeeby.
Posted by: Kamery cyfrowe at August 15, 2005 11:12 AManal erotyka dziewczyny @ anal erotyka licealistki @ anal erotyka nastolatki @ anal erotyka nimfomanki @ anal erotyka panienki @ anal erotyka porno @ anal erotyka xxx @ anal facet @ anal fantazje erotyczne @ anal filmy @ anal filmy amatorki @ anal filmy dziewice @ anal filmy modelki @ anal filmy murzynki @ anal filmy nimfomanki @ anal fisting @ anal fisting filmy @ anal fjut @ anal fjuty @ anal foki @ anal foot sex @ anal fotki @ anal fotki amatorki @ anal fotki azjatki @ anal fotki dziewczyny @ anal fotki murzynki @ anal francuz @ anal free @ anal frist @ anal fucking @ anal gabrysia @ anal galerie @ anal gang bang @ anal gay @ anal gej @ anal ginekolog @ anal gogo @ anal gole @ anal gole amatorki @ anal gole cipy @ anal gole lolitki @ anal gole nastolatki @ anal golo @ anal gratis @ anal grupowe @ anal grupowy @ anal gwalty @ anal gwiazdy @ anal hardcore @ anal ich dwoje
Posted by: ruben at September 8, 2005 04:43 AMHi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
casinos
casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
casino
poker
casino
casino
casinos
online casino
online gambling
casino
poker
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker
Take your time to check out some information dedicated to tamiflu purchase tamiflu purchase
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami1
tamiflu without prescription
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami2
tamiflu in canada
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami3
tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami4
cheap tamiflu price
http://www.dolev-yomel.com/tami5
real tamiflu price
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami6
buy tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami7
order tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami8
tamiflu online
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami9
tamiflu
http://www.archipenko.co.il/tami10
tamiflu and no prescription
http://www.archipenko.co.il/flu
Very nice site .
Posted by: Kancelaria Prawna at November 6, 2005 10:16 AMCheck out How to Gamble in America :: Poker Index :: Poker Room Review :: Sports Index :: Sports Book Review :: Casino Index :: Casino Review :: Craps :: Blackjack Strategies :: Roulette :: Let It Ride :: Three Card Poker :: Video Poker :: Gambling Quotes :: Online Gambling :: Online Poker :: Draw Poker :: Poker Hand Rankings :: Texas Hold’em :: Seven Card Stud :: Seven Card High/Low :: Omaha :: Omaha High/Low :: Guide To Sports Betting :: The Basics to Wagering on Sports :: Parlays :: Teasers :: Half Point :: Sports Betting Tips & Tricks :: Money Management :: Sports Betting Terminology :: Football Tip Tip :: Free NFL Pick :: Other Sites Index :: Bill Clinton Quotes :: Other Sites :: Other Sites 2 :: Rounders Quotes
Also check out 100 Best Poker Rooms for all the best up to date online gambling sites.
And How to Gamble Online for all the best up to date online gambling sites.
http://p097.ezboard.com/bhowtogambleinamerica
Posted by: Gamble in America at November 8, 2005 04:22 PMnew online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com Poker
Posted by: poker at December 11, 2005 01:47 AMAirfareLowest.net provides great tickets at cheap airfare prices for everyone. We have cheap hotels and cheap rental cars available. You can buy cruise tickets all over the worlds. Feel free to check out our prices so you can see that we have the cheapest prices for all tickets. We have all Airfare our tickets are all Lowest Airfare prices for all Cheap Airfare prices world wide. First Class Airfare is available so as Last Minute Airfare Available. We also provide Cheap Hotels for all Hotel Visitors and we do our own Hotels Reservations including Las Vegas Hotels, London Hotels, New York Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Orlando Hotels. We have all Rental Cars for all the location if you take a cruise ship plus cruise reviews available for all cruises. Plane Tickets available 24 hours a day on our secure server. A fare is the fee paid by a traveller allowing him or her to make use of a public transport system: rail, bus, taxi, etc. In the case of air transport, the term airfare is often used.
The fare paid is a contribution Hotels to the operational costs of the transport system involved, either partial (as is frequently the case with publicly supported systems) or total. We have Hitlton Hotels for all hotel motel places such as chicago hotels for hotels deals. Paris hotels are available all the time San Francisco Hotels 24 hours a day with Habbo hotels, for discount hotel rooms, plus all hawaii hotels, and sheraton hotels, plus malaysia hotels. It's great to spend time in radisson hotels with hotel rooms in New York city hotels plus miami hotels, and singapore hotels. We provide all kind of boston hotels for disney hotels and cancun hotels, plus discount vegas hotels for all our clients. San Diego hotels available with best western hotels in bangkok hotels, and cheap new orleans hotels, amesterdam hotels with great view of the city. Number one choice hotels at wyndham hotels for Prague Hotels and Hyatt Hotels, bellagio hotel. Doubletree hotels phuket hotels and westin hotels we have them all at all times plus toronto hotels, and niagara falls hotels. Many bus and rail systems in the United States recover only around one-third of their operational costs from fares.
The rules regarding how and when fares are to be paid and for how long they remain valid are many and varied. Rail and bus systems usually require the payment of fares on or before boarding. In the case of taxis and other vehicles for hire, payment is Cheap Rental Cars normally made at the end of the ride.
Some systems allow fare transfers: that is to say that a single payment permits travel within a particular geographical zone or time period. Such an arrangement is helpful for people who need to transfer from one route to another in order to reach their destination. Sometimes transfers are valid in one direction only, requiring a new fare to be paid for the return trip.
A Net dating service, also known as hispanic dating service online dating or internet dating, is an example of a dating system and allows individuals, couples and speed dating groups to meet online and possibly develop a social, romantic or sexual interracial dating relationship. Net dating services free dating services provide un-moderated lesbian dating matchmaking through the use of personal jewish dating computers and the Internet.
Such black dating services generally allow people to provide personal information, then search for other individuals using sex dating criteria such as age range, gender and location. Most sites allow members to upload photos of themselves dating lexington online and browse the photos of asian dating others. Sites may offer additional services, including webcasts, dating chat online chat, and message boards. Sites dating advice typically allow people to register for free but may offer services which require a monthly fee.
It seems that everywhere bbw dating you turn today been going to dating sites, people are online dating from site dating. More and more American singles use the online dating services to find love, online personals, friendship, or simply an online friend for matchmaking sites. We were launched to help online dating louisville singles of all ages for free online dating and free dating, religions such as christian datind christian dating services and sexual interests, find exactly what they're looking for with singles dating. Every personals or singles site gets reviewed before being posted here on dating web sites.We have availablegay dating, on our online dating sites, LDS Dating also available for everyone. We have dating tips for everyone, all ages dating available such as seniors dating , internet dating and also we have dating personals We provide all kind of dating such as singles for all singles websites so guys and girls can meet single girls to meet singles online. Many sites are broad-based, with members from a variety of backgrounds looking for different types of relationships. Other sites are more specific, based on the dating personals type of members, interests, location, or matchmaker dating relationship desired.U.S. any dating eharmony has href marriage match more online per service than residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and dating issue personals in 2004, the largest segment of “paid content” on the web, according to a study conducted by the Online free dating personals Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks.
In terms of the dating of free dating site complete authoritative texts, there are dating idea three main versions of the relationship dating Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first indian dating assembled russian dating in the 4th century CE. The oldest chicago dating known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the yahoo dating oldest complete match dating text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the christian dating services tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, married dating which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest dating or services copy of the Septuagint is dating direct centuries older than the seattle dating oldest complete Masoretic text, and texas dating fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which teen dating emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the web dating northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a dating game variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining latin dating authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE.
Online casino, also recognized as virtual casinos, is the online description of land-based casinos. They permit you to play casino games through the internet casino. Some online casinos supply various games such as casino gambling, while others only offer only one type of game. Online poker is also very well-liked and there are many devoted companies that offer this activity such as casino bonus, free casino games, grand casino and world wide such as uk online casino, las vegas casino.Online casinos can for sure have games offer better odds than casino on net. Land casinos on slots and other formats where the chance of captivating is resolute by the house. Table games like casino gaming, blackjack which have an casino poker, recognized house edge: for a given set of rules, they offer the similar payout, online or offline. Reliability and faith are hard to gambling casino online establish. To solve this issue, many online casinos purchase their software from well-known best casino, companies such as Wager Works, Microgaming, OddsOn, Playtech and Cryptologic, though a little study casino on line, into credentials of any e-commerce site you plan to use is gambling casino, ordinary sense. These software companies use a casino online gambling random number maker online casino slot to ensure that the casino online gambling, numbers, cards or dice appear randomly. All reputable companies in service in a regulated environment use robust random number generators.
For this particular online casino game example, this would mean that a player depositing $100 would start with $200 in his account. He must make $5000 in wagers online+casino before withdrawing. This can be played at a game such as blackjack.
online pharmacy, pharmacy, canadian pharmacy, vicodin online pharmacy, canada pharmacy, phentermine online pharmacy, online pharmacy valium, xanax online pharmacy, ultram online pharmacy, pharmacy online, alprazolam online pharmacy, discount pharmacy, mexican pharmacy, internet pharmacy, mail order pharmacy, canada online pharmacy, overseas pharmacy, foreign pharmacy, phentermine pharmacy, tesco pharmacy jobs, on line pharmacy, pharmacy technician, online+pharmacy, international pharmacy, viagra pharmacy, pharmacy job, canadian online pharmacy, pet pharmacy, pharmacy discount, canadian pharmacy online, pharmacy drug, pharmacy canadian, pharmacy order tramadol, cvs pharmacy, pharmacy drugs, lortab online pharmacy, lortab pharmacy, mexico pharmacy, vicodin pharmacy, pharmacy jobs, ultram pharmacy, online pharmacy affiliate program, soma online pharmacy, pharmacy on line, canadian discount pharmacy, discount online pharmacy, viagra online pharmacy, adderol online pharmacy, canadian pharmacy affiliate, online discount pharmacy, vicodin+online+pharmacy, online pharmacy tramadol, canadian pharmacy on line, diazepam online pharmacy, pharmacy schools, online pharmacy no prescription, online canadian pharmacy, valium pharmacy, foreign online pharmacy, hydrocodone, online pharmacy, cialis online pharmacy, wholesale pharmacy, cvs pharmacy career, phentermine+online+pharmacy, brooks pharmacy, line pharmacy, online+pharmacy+valium, xanax+online+pharmacy, alprazolam+online+pharmacy, ultram+online+pharmacy, pharmacy school, walgreens pharmacy, international online pharmacy, mexican pharmacy online, hydrocodone pharmacy, pharmacy tech, best online pharmacy, online internet pharmacy, ambien pharmacy, online doctor pharmacy, pharmacy no prescription hydrocodone, online pharmacy celebrex, online pharmacy medicine, line pharmacy phentermine, pharmacy technician schools, canadian on line pharmacy, online pharmacy pay pal, pharmacy tech online, online pharmacy canada, canada+pharmacy, mexican pharmacy ortho novum cheap florida online pharmacy, canada in online pharmacy, law online pharmacy, aldara online pharmacy, online pharmacy technician, online pharmacy technician course, online pharmacy florida delivery phentermine, pharmacy tech online schools, pharmacy technicians
Posted by: Airfare at January 5, 2006 10:41 PMpuz, sl, zdrowa żywność, mieszkania Warszawa
ogłoszenia nieruchomości, projektowanie stron
tworzenie stron, agencja reklamowa, reklama w internecie, psycholog, nauka angielskiego, soczewki kontaktowe, psyche sf, jk, nls, projektowanie wnętrz, hydraulik Warszawa, opcataloz, domy opieki, freetimes, jidds, fabrykapoe, sfworks, polskepoeje, pb, pp, jk, wypadki, opony, agroturystyka, klimatyzacja, apteka, dentysta, f, kray, ewes, angs, git, akupunktura, sc
卫星电视上海卫星电视卫星电视安装安装卫星电视圣诞树网站建设google优化Google左侧优化google排名Google左侧排名GOOGE左侧优化排名 上海google优化google优化排名上海google左侧排名上海google排名上海google左侧优化google优化Google左侧优化短信群发短信群发器短信群发群发短信短信群发器小灵通群发器小灵通短信群发器短信群发软件手机短信群发软件短信群发设备手机短信群发设备手机短信群发器网站建设网站设计网站制作美女图片美女写真性感美女制服美腿西洋美女走光偷拍网友自拍包装印刷上海包装印刷免费电影免费下载电影免费在线电影上海印刷上海包装弯管弯管上海hp笔记本维修上海惠普笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修上海DELL笔记本维修上海联想笔记本维修上海东芝笔记本维修上海acer笔记本维修上海华硕笔记本维修上海索尼笔记本维修上海sony笔记本维修上海hp笔记本维修上海IBM笔记本维修弯管 弯管加工 路灯节能路灯监控 合同能源管理google优化google左侧优化google排名google左侧排名卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视安装卫星电视安装卫星电视卫星电视卫星电视安装上海卫星电视
Posted by: 111 at November 29, 2007 12:00 AMrunescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-
c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money <a
href="http://www.runescape2store.com">runescape gold wow power leveling <a
href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling <a
href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com">Warcraft PowerLeveling buy
runescape gold buy runescape money <a
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-
runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money <a
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-runescape-accounts-c-599_988.html">runescape accounts <a
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-c-599.html">runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-
1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas <a
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c-389.html">Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c
-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold <a
href="http://www.buylotrogold.org">buy lotro gold lotro gold <a
href="http://www.buy-lotro-gold.cn">buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-
975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold <a
href="http://www.800millions.com">runescape money runescape power leveling <a
href="http://www.runescape2vip.cn">runescape money runescape gold <a
href="http://www.buydofuskamas.com">dofus kamas cheap runescape money <a
href="http://www.runescape4money.net">cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-
1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London
Palladium Hellgate money <a
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-
rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-
rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold
href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/dofus-c-891.html">dofus kamas buy
href=http://www.nncbroadway.com>音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码
href=http://www.innhot.com/7daysinn>7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 <a
href=http://www.filt.cn>自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 <a
href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 <a
href=http://www.bf-rae.cn>液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪
风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-
leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling <a
href=http://"www.wow-power-leveling.net">Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft
Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling <a href=http://"www.wow-
power-leveling.net">World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape
power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-
c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-
c-599.html">runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy
runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items <a href="http://www.runescapemoney-
runescapegold.cn">runescape gold runescape money runescape accounts runescape gp <a href="http://www.vgoldsupply.com/dofus-c-
1054.html">dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/guild-wars-c
-389.html">buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/lord-rings-onlineus-c-
975.html">lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/hellgate-london-c-
1102.html">Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London
Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-
rasa-c-1107.html">tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/tabula-
rasa-c-1107.html">Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold
Hellgate London gold dofus kamas buy
dofus kamas 血管瘤 肝血管瘤 音乐剧 北京富码电视 富码
电视 富码电视台 7天酒店 7天连锁酒店 7天连锁 自清洗过滤器 过滤器 压力开关 压力传感器 流量开关 流量计 液位计 液位开关 温湿度记录仪
风速仪 可燃气体检测仪 <a href="http://www.wow-power-
leveling.net">wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft
Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape
power leveling runescape powerleveling
runescape money <a href="http://www.vgoldseller.com/runescape-
c-599.html">runescape gold wow power leveling 棕榈树
eve isk
eve online isk
eve isk
eve online isk
