The United States will probably have more troops in Iraq this summer than it did before pouring in forces last year - even after a planned drawdown, a U.S. general said on Friday.
There were some 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq before President George W. Bush ordered a surge of about 30,000 more to curb rampant violence that threatened to plunge the country into all-out civil war.
By summer, U.S. commanders plan to have withdrawn more than 20,000 combat troops deployed as part of the surge. But officials indicated some support units sent around the same time would remain or be replaced.
"It's likely that... the (total) number will be a little bit larger than the 132,000 or so that was the number of personnel on the ground pre-surge," said Army Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations on the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
Sattler said he could not be more precise yet as commanders had still to complete their plans, but a Pentagon source said the number could be as high as 140,000.
At the same news briefing, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. John Sattler said Iraqi forces would continue to need substantial help from U.S. support troops in areas such as logistics.
"We will still be required for a period of time to provide those enablers," said Sattler, the Joint Staff's director of strategic plans and policy.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on a visit to Baghdad this week, backed the idea of a pause in drawdowns after the extra combat troops have pulled out.
That increased the prospect that troop levels could still be around 130,000 when Americans choose a successor to Bush in early November.
Showing posts with label troops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label troops. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16
US Troop Levels To Become Surge-ier
Reuters via the New York Times reports that we are likely to have more troops in Iraq than before the Surge.
Wednesday, September 12
John Edwards Response to Bush: "The president taking credit for this withdrawal is like taking credit for gravity"
"President Bush has stated that he will withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer. The truth is that because the president's Iraq policy has brought our military close to the breaking point, these forces would have been withdrawn anyway—unless the president planned to extend tours to an unconscionable 18 months. The president taking credit for this withdrawal is like taking credit for gravity.
"It's time to end this sad game of excuses and Beltway double-talk. Last November, the American people voted for real change in Iraq, but instead the president has clung to the status quo and Congress has caved. For over a year, I have called for an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops—not by next summer, but today—to jump-start the comprehensive political solution that will end the violence in Iraq and allow a complete troop withdrawal within a year. In the face of the president's irresponsible tactics, Congress must stand united and say with one voice: No timetable, no funding. No excuses."
"It's time to end this sad game of excuses and Beltway double-talk. Last November, the American people voted for real change in Iraq, but instead the president has clung to the status quo and Congress has caved. For over a year, I have called for an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops—not by next summer, but today—to jump-start the comprehensive political solution that will end the violence in Iraq and allow a complete troop withdrawal within a year. In the face of the president's irresponsible tactics, Congress must stand united and say with one voice: No timetable, no funding. No excuses."
Friday, September 7
How Many More?
Insurgents killed seven American servicemen in two separate attacks in Iraq on Thursday, US military officials have said.Four marines were killed while conducting combat operations in the western province of Anbar. No further details were given.
Three soldiers were killed in the northern province of Nineveh, when their vehicle was caught in a blast.
Eighteen US servicemen have died in operations in Iraq this month.
Levels of violence in the vast, predominantly Sunni province of Anbar had dropped recently. President Bush visited Anbar on Monday and praised the improved security there.
The latest casualties mean more than 3,750 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the start of the US-led invasion in 2003.
Monday, August 20
No More "Fresh" Troops
Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable. More
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable. More
Wednesday, May 23
The Resurgency of the Surge
According to Stewart Powell in the San Frnacisco Chronicle:
"The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.
The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.
Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year."
This is disturbing news and hopefully will not defy the mainstream news cycle. but if it does, will any of us really be surprised?
"The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.
The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.
Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year."
This is disturbing news and hopefully will not defy the mainstream news cycle. but if it does, will any of us really be surprised?
Tuesday, April 10
Unrealistic Expectations
From the Daily Iowan
"Recently, in a forum to discuss federal support for student financial aid, the vote of Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, for supplemental funding toward Iraq came under scrutiny. The UI Antiwar Committee was shut out of the meeting except for a statement to the freshman representative saying the vote raised "serious questions" about his true commitment to education. While pro-education sentiments are admirable, and this Editorial Board - like the majority of Americans - supports the measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq, we cannot support the way in which some antiwar protesters continually place unrealistic expectations upon lawmakers or believe immediate removal of troops will solve everything."
This is the future of our country speaking.
What is a "realistic expectation" to ending an unjust war? How many more soldiers, innocent civilians, and others have to be sacrificed for our moderation? The DI editorial staff has got it wrong. We need to be demanding of our lawmakers because they are the ones we elect to solve problems not exacerbate them.
This and there is a cause and effect to our defense spending. It is true that we are up to our eyeballs in national debt, but think about where most of the debt comes from and you'll quickly conclude it is due largely to building and maintaining the largest military arsenal ever assembled in the history of the world. This does have an effect on the tuition University of Iowa students pay. So why is it inappropriate to point out the cost of our military, again?
With regard to extracting ourselves from Iraq, I do agree with the DI on one issue, there is no good way to do it--by ourselves. And that has been the problem from the start. We failed to use diplomacy in an effective manner then and we have lost the all important political capital to do it now. The way forward in Iraq is to let regional diplomacy work, to offer aid to repair Iraq's infrastructure, and most importantly, to redeploy our troops as quickly as we can to where they best can be effective.
Supporting this is not too much to demand of our nation's leaders or those who are the future of our country.
"Recently, in a forum to discuss federal support for student financial aid, the vote of Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, for supplemental funding toward Iraq came under scrutiny. The UI Antiwar Committee was shut out of the meeting except for a statement to the freshman representative saying the vote raised "serious questions" about his true commitment to education. While pro-education sentiments are admirable, and this Editorial Board - like the majority of Americans - supports the measured withdrawal of troops from Iraq, we cannot support the way in which some antiwar protesters continually place unrealistic expectations upon lawmakers or believe immediate removal of troops will solve everything."
This is the future of our country speaking.
What is a "realistic expectation" to ending an unjust war? How many more soldiers, innocent civilians, and others have to be sacrificed for our moderation? The DI editorial staff has got it wrong. We need to be demanding of our lawmakers because they are the ones we elect to solve problems not exacerbate them.
This and there is a cause and effect to our defense spending. It is true that we are up to our eyeballs in national debt, but think about where most of the debt comes from and you'll quickly conclude it is due largely to building and maintaining the largest military arsenal ever assembled in the history of the world. This does have an effect on the tuition University of Iowa students pay. So why is it inappropriate to point out the cost of our military, again?
With regard to extracting ourselves from Iraq, I do agree with the DI on one issue, there is no good way to do it--by ourselves. And that has been the problem from the start. We failed to use diplomacy in an effective manner then and we have lost the all important political capital to do it now. The way forward in Iraq is to let regional diplomacy work, to offer aid to repair Iraq's infrastructure, and most importantly, to redeploy our troops as quickly as we can to where they best can be effective.
Supporting this is not too much to demand of our nation's leaders or those who are the future of our country.
Thursday, February 22
Speaking of Supporting Our Troops--At Home
A ‘breakdown in leadership’
A top army general blamed “a breakdown in leadership” for poor living conditions of wounded soldiers at the US Army’s renowned Walter Reed Medical Center.
But General Richard Cody, vice chief of staff of the army, said no one has been relieved of command or disciplined since the problems were exposed over the weekend by The Washington Post. “Clearly, we’ve had a breakdown in leadership and bureaucratic, medical and contractual processes dogged down a speedy solution to these problems,” Cody said at a Pentagon news conference.
The Post said convalescing soldiers in one army building were living in rooms with mold covered walls, holes in the ceiling and infestations of rodents and cockroaches. The series set off a furor with the White House expressing shock and lawmakers demanding action.
And there's this from the Washington Post
Most infuriating are reports of official efforts to deny disability benefits to discharged fighters. The Army tried to deny disability compensation to Cpl. Dell McLeod, who suffered a head injury that left him aimless and unable even to count change at the cafeteria. Army officials' argument: Because he had done poorly in high school, his current mental state might not have been caused by the steel door that smashed his skull in Iraq. If the Army determined that he was mentally fit to serve in the first place, it cannot now abscond from its responsibility for the consequences of his service overseas. Cpl. McLeod ended up getting a settlement from the command at Walter Reed -- despite base staffers' best efforts -- only after his wife got a congressional staffer involved.
A top army general blamed “a breakdown in leadership” for poor living conditions of wounded soldiers at the US Army’s renowned Walter Reed Medical Center.
But General Richard Cody, vice chief of staff of the army, said no one has been relieved of command or disciplined since the problems were exposed over the weekend by The Washington Post. “Clearly, we’ve had a breakdown in leadership and bureaucratic, medical and contractual processes dogged down a speedy solution to these problems,” Cody said at a Pentagon news conference.
The Post said convalescing soldiers in one army building were living in rooms with mold covered walls, holes in the ceiling and infestations of rodents and cockroaches. The series set off a furor with the White House expressing shock and lawmakers demanding action.
And there's this from the Washington Post
Most infuriating are reports of official efforts to deny disability benefits to discharged fighters. The Army tried to deny disability compensation to Cpl. Dell McLeod, who suffered a head injury that left him aimless and unable even to count change at the cafeteria. Army officials' argument: Because he had done poorly in high school, his current mental state might not have been caused by the steel door that smashed his skull in Iraq. If the Army determined that he was mentally fit to serve in the first place, it cannot now abscond from its responsibility for the consequences of his service overseas. Cpl. McLeod ended up getting a settlement from the command at Walter Reed -- despite base staffers' best efforts -- only after his wife got a congressional staffer involved.
Tuesday, January 9
Reading the Tea Leaves
A couple other bloggers (Diary of a Political Madman and Political Forecast) have latched on to my post about Dave Loebsack's statements. In fairness to Dave, and to aid my DFA friend Ed Flaherty who has been actively trying to stop this war, I sent a fax to our new IA-2 Congressman's office to clarify his position. I supported Dave in his run and, for the record, do not have any animosity toward him personally.
I feel that his public statements are confusing and hope he and/or his office will take time to clarify his current position. There are many folks in the 2nd District that would like to bring our troops home safely and have grave concerns about a projected surge that the president is likely to propose and will call for additional funding to accomplish. I know Dave to be an honorable person and look forward to reporting what I learn.
I feel that his public statements are confusing and hope he and/or his office will take time to clarify his current position. There are many folks in the 2nd District that would like to bring our troops home safely and have grave concerns about a projected surge that the president is likely to propose and will call for additional funding to accomplish. I know Dave to be an honorable person and look forward to reporting what I learn.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)