So what, again, was the point in destroying Falluja?

The military is calling up airborne divisions and increasing the number of troops in Iraq to 150,000 in an effort to have more security for the elections. Or so they say. One would figure that with our supposedly sweeping victory in Falluja and all of the military's talk about having the "insurgents on the run," this should all mean that we'll need less troops. Right? Or was that just more of the new Five O'Clock Follies? Whenever the Bush administration or the military make a statement, should I just automatically believe that the opposite is true? And will that laste question win the coveted "Rhetorical Question of the Year" award?

And the news just gets worse:

The Pentagon ordered airborne reinforcements into Iraq yesterday to bolster its forces during the general election due in January, marking the end of Washington's hope that other countries would supply the extra soldiers.

Perhaps some Bush voters will read that and start regretting the fact that they didn't vote for Kerry, but I doubt it.

In related news, Roxanne's 18 year old niece is being, unfortunately, deployed to Iraq. As Roxanne points out: "She's in the Air Force. There are only a few thousand AF personnel in Iraq, yet she's going to Iraq." I'm beginning to wonder just how much escalation of our forces there will be in the future.