This isn't a game of chess. It's war.

Increasing the number of troops mean increasing the need for more supplies. This puts more supply people at risk. Basically a huge force is not necessary and often adds to logistical difficulties.

The best and most efficient teams are groups of people ( 6-15 ) which are nearly self sufficient and can accomplish all sorts of things. Our CIA forces, SADI and the military special forces are working around the clock.

Wars simply don't need to be human bloodbaths like the civil war. We are not going to line up hundreds of thousands of bodies and tanks in a line and provide an attractive target for a WMD attack!

Today a large target is just a sitting duck. Having a half million combat troops would be a logistical NIGHTMARE. It means you have to have another 750,000 in support capacity in Iraq and throughout the region.

Accidents ALONE would claim another 500 lives in that type of scenario.

No, these scale forces are perfect because should Saddam use WMD, or perish forbid a nuke, we still have sizable forces outside the theatre of operations to replace them.

We are not the Soviet Union of 1943 who have to throw millions of lives into a grinder for our advances. We have the superiority do more with less.

I can ASSURE you a force twice this size would NOT have reduced our fatalities at all - but rather surely INCREASED them.

Battle fog is increased in larger operations there is enough out there now as it is without making the same mistakes of WWII.

SDAI-Tech1