Do we need more troops in Iraq?

Greg (at Belgravia Dispatch) and I have been arguing/discussing (see the comment section) whether or not Rumsfeld should stay or go, and I think, based upon a review of his posts, that the crux of the matter is the claim, which he believes, that we need more troops in Iraq. He apparently agrees, because today he promised a more in-depth analysis of the issue.

Like Greg, I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong. I'm no military expert by any means. What I want to do in this and following posts is survey the data regarding the call for more troops and see what the pro and con arguments are. As I told Greg in the comment section (mentioned above) both Rumsfeld and Bush have repeatedly stated that if the generals asked for more troops, they would provide them. Greg believes the generals are "cowed" by Rumsfeld's authoritative demeanor and don't want to get on his bad side. I think that's a serious charge to make of men who have dedicated their lives to leading the military.

Greg mentioned, when asked where we would get more troops, that we could get additional troops from Korea and Germany. I don't think we can completely abandon Korea, but perhaps we could reduce the force strength to some degree. I certainly think we need to reduce force strength in Germany, however I suspect we should keep Landstuhl, because it provides us with an easiily accessed location for intermediate intensive care for troops in medical crisis. I doubt we would want to fly troops back to the states until they're stabilized. I suspect that would take too long and cost us lives we could otherwise save.

In subsequent articles, I will address the following issues: what was the condition of the military when Bush took office, has troop strength been increased or decreased since Bush took office, what are the arguments regarding troop strength in Iraq and what would we gain by increasing troop strength in Iraq.