My question is this: Why is there a vastly greater security presence in D.C. than in Iraq? I fear the answer is simply that the Bush administration cares about, and is willing to pay for, its own security. No word yet on whether the homeland security secretary plans to re-invent homeland security to provide protection on the cheap.
Iraq:
Total area: 437,000 km^2
Total population: 25,000,000 people
Inaugural security
2,500 troops
"Thousands" of police officers (from a total force of 3,550).
Total security force (est) 5,500
Iraq security forces
U.S. troops: 138,000 to 150,000
Trained Iraqi police: 8,200 to 33,000
Total security force (est): 146,200 to 183,000
Inaugural security effort
9.8 security force personnel per 1,000 residents
31 security force personnel per square kilometer
Iraq security effort
5.8 to 7.3 security force personnel per 1,000 residents
.3 to .4 security force personnel per square kilometer
Of course, military leadership expected Iraqis to greet us with a shower of rose petals. Some on the inaugural parade route are expected to boo. In addition, one could argue that Iraq is generally safer, now that we're absolutely certain that Iraq is now, and has been since before the invasion, free from weapons of mass destruction.