Strategizing in my war room

by David Grand
December 11, 2003

Scrambling as the Pentagon is these days to meet the demands for replacements in Iraq and and additional troops in other "hot spots," I thought they'd welcome advice from any source, even from an old Korean vet.

As it now stands, they plan on relying more heavily on National Guard units and reservists, doubling their numbers in Iraq from 20 to 40 percent under a rotation system, while reducing the total number of American troops to about 105,000 by the time the rotation was completed in May 2004.

That could, however, be an overly optimistic goal, since the attacks by the insurgents, not only on U.S. troops but foreign nationals as well, are becoming more sophisticated and organized, as was showing on Nov.30 when 2 U.S. convoys were ambushed and engaged in what was the bloodiest shootout since the occupation began.

Assuming my strategy is correct, that those guerilla fighters can only be "brought to their knees" by an overwhelming use of military might, I would propose re-deploying to Iraq a large percentage of the 255,000 troops stationed abroad as follows:

• The 38,000 in South Korea. For if that looney-tune President Kim of North Korea decides to launch an attack on South Korea it will be with nuclear, not conventional weapons. But I'd leave an MP unit to guard the gates at the 38th parallel, and our flag pole which is the tallest in the world.
• The 11,900 in Italy. Why should they stay there, feasting on Italian dishes (including the two-legged ones), drinking Chianti and having pictures taken of 'em by-or in- the fountains in Rome; when the soldiers in Iraq often have to boil the water, live off of C rations, and the closest they come to anything feminine is wearing pantyhose to keep the bugs off of 'em.
• The 11,400 in England. While the Brits might initially scream bloody murder, I'm sure they'd come to realize there's a more urgent need for their presence in Iraq, and give a hearty "cheerio" to the departing troops, with only the owners of the pubs "crying in their beer" over the loss of so many regular customers.
• The 71,400 in Germany. Hey, the Cold War is over, so there's no longer a need to worry about Russian tanks rolling across the borders, even if that means we'd be breaking our long-standing, treaty agreement with NATO. We broke over 700 treaties with Native American tribes, and they were the only ones that complained. 
• The 39,700 in Japan. That would be fitting payback for their having reneged recently on their commitment to send troops to Iraq. Now, I know it will be a tearjerker for our soldiers having to say "sayonara" to that scenic country, sake (rice wine), flirting with the geisha women and relaxing off-duty in their colorful kimonos.  But they could look forward to swimming in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, riding a camel, plucking juicy figs from the 25 million fig trees, and taking pictures of Saddam's palatial palaces for the folks back home.

Let's see, by my calculations that would be a total of roughly 173,500 troops we could withdraw from those five counties. And that added manpower would more than make-up for the absence of troops from those scaredy-cat countries like France, Germany and Russia.

That would also allow us to augment the 8500 troops in Afghanistan in order to cope with the reign of terror the warlords have established in small towns and rural areas, and in combating the increasing attacks by the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies on U.S. troops. And maybe-just maybe- finally succeeding in rooting out that elusive varmint Osama bin Laden.

Not that I would seek recognition for my outstanding contribution to the war effort, but it'd be nice if I was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the rose garden. Plus, it would give my scottie Barney a chance to have a face-off with the president's scottie of the same name. I know who'd back-off in fright.