First off, I want to say that the devastation in Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama is horrible. I hope that the government does everything it can as fast as it can to get help to the tens of thousands who clearly are is desperate shape.
The latest news reports put the total number of national guard and federal troops either there or on the way at over 50,000 (and they are clearly needed). Meanwhile there is widespread looting, fires being set, and even doctors are being shot at.
So here's my question. If we need 50,000 troops (and growing) to handle this situation in the United States, how on earth did Bush, Rumsfeld, etc ever think we could handle an entire country with 120,000 troops. That's barely double the number being rushed to the New Orleans area - and Iraq is a lot bigger and has a lot more people than that.
And if looting breaks out so fast here (and this is not the only time this has happened in the U.S.), how could anyone with a modicum of intelligence assume it would not have happened in Iraq.
Iraq's infrastructure was devastated, more by the first Iraq war and Saddam Hussien's neglect than the second Iraq war. But nontheless it was in terrible shape (except for the palaces). A different source of devastation - but if the electricity is out people don't so much care why, just that it's out.
The bottom line is that with the number of troops being rushed to New Orleans (one city), it is very clear that the military force is woefully undermanned, possibly by an order of magnitude. I would like to see the president answer why New Orleans needs tens of thousands of troops (which it clearly does) and yet an entire country needs maybe twice that total.
