Another Democratic assumption about our future in Iraq could prove faulty

If the Army wants an additional $3 billion to speed up the rate of its expansion of forces, Congressional , and presidential candidate, Democrats who are relying on a forced drawdown from Iraq due to troop number walls will find their assumptions challenged.

In January, when Bush announced his intention to send five extra combat brigades to Iraq in a change of war strategy, he also approved a plan to increase the size of the Army by 74,000 soldiers over five years. The rationale was that the Army needs to get bigger in order to sustain a long-term commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan without wearing out the troops and alienating their families.

The Marine Corps also is expanding for the same reason.

(Secretary of the Army Pete) Geren said the Army now sees a need to accelerate its growth plan, as strains on troops continue to mount. He said the Army estimates it will cost an extra $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion — mainly in added personnel costs — to accomplish the 74,000 increase in four years rather than five.

Add this to the fact that the top three Democratic presidential candidates have officially said they’re OK with a military presence in Iraq five years from now, the seriousness about Clinton, Obama and Edwards of getting us out of Iraq has to be questioned even more.