A few e-mails worth browsing:

E-mail: Rich- Your writer complaining about troop strength misses the point. If indeed “more troops” were the answer, then this Glimmer of Hope would not have been possible today where there are 152,000 troops versus the high-water-mark in Feb-05 when there were 180,000 troops. Solving this isn’t about troop strength, but about how we apply the strength.Is it any wonder that Baghdad started to see improvements in security once we started applying the same mass-strength strategy that worked for Basra? Now you may ask why the millitary did not start this program in Baghdad previously. I think it is a fair question, but one that is likely as complex as any other question in Iraq. Trying to simplify everything down to the number of troops is tantemount to suggesting that there exists a simple sollution to Iraq. We need to get it through our thick skulls that there is nothing simple about this. There is no magic bullet except for force of will. Only if we maintain the willpower to see this through will we maintain the capability to react to complex situations and eliminate the enemy’s changing tactics as they materialize. This is what got us through such American setbacks as the Battle of the Bulge, Bull Run and the Burning of Washington. It wasn’t something as simple as the number of troops. E-mail: Rich, I’m not sure that the better results are due to adding more U.S. troops to Baghdad (what was it? 6,500) as much as the strategy being employed of basically going house to house looking for weapons and insurgents, as well as taking on the Shiite militias. And for both of these jobs U.S. forces need the Iraqi forces as well as Iraqi will. The forces may have been available for some time, but I’m not sure about the will of the government to take on the Sadr militia. Ironically, it would appear to be a similar situation to Lebanon where an Iranian backed militia has to be disarmed. As for all the complaints about a bungled effort post fall of Saddam, how many times exactly has the U.S. ever done this sort of thing? Not only is this a new experience, it is also a new type of warfare. I think the Bush administration should be cut some slack by all of the Monday morning quarterbacks. E-mail: Bravo to the reader you posted who recognized the salient point in your “Glimmers of Hope” postings. If more personnel in Baghdad works, why didn’t we do this years ago? Answer: because the military is tiny compared to the Reagan years, and Bush wanted to spend funds on prescription drug giveaways instead of asking public to give us 5 more divisions of soldiers. In fact, the Air Force is currently cutting personnel with a pretty broad axe to get end strength down to Congressionally mandated levels. Junior officers are being fired even before they’ve filled their 4 year commitments. I’m close to retirement so the cuts don’t affect me–but I can’t believe we’re REDUCING military personnel at this time: it’s like the French cutting military personnel AFTER the invasion of Poland indicated the German desire for Lebensraum. We should know better. In short, if you ask senior administration folks if a larger military is necessary to ensure success in Iraq, you get something very close to Kevin Bacon screaming “ALL IS WELL, ALL IS WELL” in Animal House. Despite the glaringly obvious fact that more policemen make crime go down, and more soldiers on street corners in Baghdad make bad guys stay indoors. E-mail: Did you not take from the WP article (evidently THEY didn’t) the positive aspect of Iraqi troops taking on the Shiite militia. This is a genuinely breathtaking development. If it is sustained and followed up on, it will mark a turning point in this struggle. I’m simply taken aback by the focus on the (naturally) high cost of such a battle while ignoring such a crucial development…