A reprint of part of what I wrote quoting expert testimony regarding how many troops it would take to control Iraq. This testimony was given before the war. As this shakes out, it looks like an insurrection plus wide spread rioting. The "news" is slanted toward us losing as anyone who watched the "news conference" this AM will tell you. Constant "gotcha" questions to a combat general. From my piece:

Anybody remember a guy named Shinseki? The Army Chief of Staff who dared voice his opinion? He was the traitorous moron who told congress that "several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to occupy Iraq." Rumsfeld got rid of him. He was called a Clintonite, Rumsfeldspeak for chickenshit liberal. Shinseki stuck to his guns til fired.

Another fucking moron, James Dobbins, director of RAND's International Security and Defense Policy Center and a former U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia, said that 300,000-500,000 soldiers would be needed to do the job properly in Iraq. This incompetent asshole further stated that his estimates of 300,000-500,000 "derived from our experiences in Bosnia and Kosovo, based on the population density of the country. The best defense is a good deterrent, and the best deterrent is a visible, effective [law] enforcement force. New York City has 30,000 policemen, and that's a relatively peaceful area. Why would Baghdad be any different?"

It looks like this "riot/rebellion" took place because we don't have enough troops there to stop 10,000 people from arming themselves and planning a revolt. How the hell can you miss 10,000 people? It's easy if nobody is there to watch. As for the futility of "intel" be sure to read "Our Bad Intel. It Won't get Any Better" as well as the links to NRO.