Does McChrystal not know his own Army doctrine?

In light of reports that US President Barack Obama wants to send 34,000 more troops, reportedly; that’s four-fifths of a loaf for Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but far less than Army doctrine says will do:

The Army's counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

So, why is McChrystal asking for 40,000 when it’s nowhere near what’s needed?

Another Vietnam? Should we just call him “Westmoreland” now and beat the rush?

Is the U.S. becoming more like Russia?

That’s what a provocative new essay in Salon hints.

I would slightly modify that, though. I think it’s that we’re becoming more like China, instead, since there’s not a Mafioso thuggery involved in the U.S. version of crony capitalism.

The Berlin Wall fall 20 years on – regrets?

One professional class former East German probably speaks for many of her compatriots with a laundry list of regrets. Meanwhile, an American regrets how Eastern Europe of the 1990s evolved tangled state-private open-door networks similar to today’s American system that caused the financial meltdown.

Obama ready to ramp up in Afghanistan?

He wants to send 34,000 more troops, reportedly; that’s four-fifths of a loaf for Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but far less than Army doctrine says will do:

The Army's counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

And, are we at risk of “going it alone”? There’s this:

n an interview last week with The New York Times, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner complained that the American administration is leaving its NATO allies in the dark about its new strategy.

"What is the goal? What is the road? And in the name of what?" Kouchner asked, according to the Times. "Where are the Americans? It begins to be a problem . . . . We need to talk to each other as allies."

The New York Times says it’s it’s the middle of three options on troop numbers.

Vietnam, anyone? One-term president, anyone?

A Dem, maybe two with guts to vote no on 'health care'?

Per Huffington Post, it’s clear Dennis Kucinich opposed what he saw as a sellout to the insurance industry. I don’t know for sure about Artur Davis, but, per this NY Times graphic, he may have had similar reasons.

Many Afghans don't want more US troops either

With sentiments like this on the rise, why would we send 40,000 more troops