Almost everyone agrees that one of the biggest flaws in the American strategy for invading Iraq is that there were too few troops to successfully contain an insurgency, thanks mostly to Rumsfeld's arrogance. So why has it become the received wisdom that the correct response to events in Iraq is to reduce further the number of coalition troops?
If Iraq is going to have any future oother than more bloodshed then there needs to be a concerted effort to make Baghdad a city where sectarian death squads don't rule the roost and there are clearly insufficient troops to do so at present.
With the dig at Rumsfeld I believed I was being almost Guardianesque and yet I've been banned. Perhaps I should have launched into a tirade about zionazi neocons butchering arab toddlers.