Bush could double force by Christmas

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Sure, let's continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, right, Weasel? Give the surge a chance, right? Are you for - or against - an eternal surge, or several surges, or just this one surge, or what? You said give this surge a chance. Looks like they are already heading to Plan B, to me.
--------------------------------------------

Bush could double force by Christmas
Stewart M. Powell, Hearst Newspapers

(05-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- 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.

The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

The first surge was prominently announced by President Bush in a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, when he ordered five more combat brigades to join 15 brigades already in Iraq.

The buildup was designed to give commanders the 20 combat brigades Pentagon planners said were needed to provide security in Baghdad and western Anbar province.

Since then, the Pentagon has extended combat tours for units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months and announced the deployment of additional brigades.

Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according the deployment orders examined by Hearst Newspapers.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey said there was no effort by the Army to carry out "a secret surge" beyond the 20 combat brigades ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"There isn't a second surge going on; we've got what we've got," Ey said. "The idea that there are ever going to be more combat brigades in theater in the future than the secretary of defense has authorized is pure speculation."

Ey attributed the increase in troops to "temporary increases that typically occur during the crossover period" as arriving combat brigades move into position to replace departing combat brigades.

He said that only elements of the eight additional combat brigades beyond the 20 already authorized would actually be in Iraq in December.

The U.S. Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., that tracks combat forces heading to and returning from Iraq, declined to discuss unit-by-unit deployments.

"Due to operational security, we cannot confirm or discuss military unit movements or schedules," Navy Lt. Jereal Dorsey said in an e-mail.

The Pentagon has repeatedly extended unit tours in Iraq during the past four years to achieve temporary increases in combat power. For example, three combat brigades were extended up to three months in November 2004 to boost the number of U.S. troops from 138,000 to 150,000 before, during and after the Jan. 30, 2005, Iraqi national elections.

Lawrence Korb, an assistant defense secretary for manpower during the Reagan administration, said the Pentagon deployment schedule enables the Bush administration to achieve quick increases in combat forces in the future by delaying units' scheduled departures from Iraq and overlapping them with arriving replacement forces.

"The administration is giving itself the capability to increase the number of troops in Iraq," Korb said. "It remains to be seen whether they actually choose to do that."
Nash said the capability could reflect an effort by the Bush administration to "get the number of troops into Iraq that we've needed there all along."

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
have been saying for awhile that there should have been a larger force from the getgo (love saying this word..lol).
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
There has been some significant headways of late--not so much on admins actions but moreso the people are getting tired of terrorists indiscrimately targeting civilians.

from Time today--believe it or not

There's Good News from Iraq
Wednesday, May. 23, 2007 By JOE KLEIN Some 30 tribes in Al Anbar formed an alliance, the "Anbar Awakening," in September and pledged to fight Al Qaeda militants in the insurgency-plagued province by forming their own paramilitary units and sending recruits to the local police force.

There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me?confirming reports from several other sources?that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.

The good news comes with caveats, of course. The removal of AQI's havens in Anbar may ultimately hurt the terrorists' ability to blow up markets in Baghdad, but it hasn't yet. As I reported in September 2005, there is also the scandalous reality that an alliance with the tribes was proposed by U.S. Army intelligence officers as early as October 2003 and rejected by L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority on the grounds that "tribes are part of the past. They have no place in the new democratic Iraq." The damage caused by that myopic stupidity may never be repaired: it gave al-Qaeda a base in the Sunni tribal areas, which enabled the sustained, spectacular anti-Shi'ite bombing campaign, which, along with the Sunnis' historic disdain for the Shi'ite majority, created the conditions for the current civil war. "Just because the Sunni tribesmen have joined with us in Anbar doesn't mean they like the Baghdad government," a senior Administration official told me. "They just hate al-Qaeda more."

Which is why there is some very bad news from Iraq as well. There is a growing sense among senior U.S. military and intelligence officials that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki?and the Shi'ite factions in general?has little interest in making concessions to the Sunnis. "The Shi'ites suffer from a battered-child syndrome. They simply don't trust the Sunnis," said a senior U.S. official. There was a long history, even before Saddam Hussein's massacres, of Sunni prejudice and pogroms against the Shi'ites. In recent months, the al-Maliki government has sent several clear signals of anti-Sunni intransigence. It has supported the "voluntary" relocation of Sunni Arabs from the disputed, Kurdish-dominated city of Kirkuk. And in an instance that is particularly vexing to U.S. intelligence officials, al-Maliki has supported the creation of a parallel Shi'ite-dominated intelligence service to supplant the authority of the Iraq Intelligence Service, which has been run by a Sunni general named Mahmoud Shahwani, who is considered "very effective" by U.S. officials. It is beginning to seem quite implausible that the various Iraqi political factions will meet "benchmarks" like rescinding the punitive de-Baathification programs and passing a law guaranteeing fair distribution of oil profits anytime soon. And as General David Petraeus keeps reminding us, a political solution is necessary: a military victory is not possible. So let's try to put the good and bad news together. It's not impossible that the Iraqis will eventually remove the al-Qaeda cancer from the Sunni insurgency?which would put a serious crimp in President George W. Bush's current rationale for the war, that we're there to fight al-Qaeda. But it's also probable that without a political deal, the sectarian conflict between the Sunnis and Shi'ites will intensify?and eventually explode when the U.S. military pulls back from Iraq. The stakes in Iraq then become questions of moral responsibility and regional stability. "How many Srebrenicas do you have the stomach for?" a senior U.S. official asked me, referring to the Bosnian massacre by the Serbs in 1995. Given the antipathy of the American people for the war, I'd guess the public reaction would be, "Those Arabs are just a bunch of barbarians, and we could never tell the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis anyway." A more pointed question is, How many massacres of Sunnis will the Saudis and Jordanians have the stomach for? How hard will Iran press its obvious advantage with a Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq? The answers to those questions are completely out of American hands. They rest with the Iraqi Shi'ites. Eventually even battered children have to grow up
 

flapjack

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,244
7
0
If they would have done that 3+ years ago, history might be much different - or not, who knows. I could only imagine. Its the little things, decisions that people dont really think about at the time that make the big difference in the end. Very sad.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
If they would have done that 3+ years ago, history might be much different - or not, who knows. I could only imagine. Its the little things, decisions that people dont really think about at the time that make the big difference in the end. Very sad.

General Shinsiki did say what it would take and they fired him. Fired him like the scumbags that they are. These decisions were thought about and all the neocons thumb their noses at them. anyone that got in the way got fired.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
If they would have done that 3+ years ago, history might be much different - or not, who knows. I could only imagine. Its the little things, decisions that people dont really think about at the time that make the big difference in the end. Very sad.

i read an interview with powell after he left the bush administration. as sec't of state, he was present at the strategy meetings before the invasion of iraq. he said that he wanted about 450,000 troops but rumsfeld wanted a sleeker army so they could be more mobile. he strongly disagreed & told rumsfeld something like you're responsible if you break it...i'm sure you know what he meant by that....this is what has gotten me more mad about this war than anything else.
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
You guys should have been watching CNN more back in the day. All they had were analysts touting the 300,000 + troops plan. ....Then again, all they are is Socialist scumbags, right? Ironically, the CNN strategy may have worked.

PS - IT'S TOO LATE NOW!!!!!
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
You guys should have been watching CNN more back in the day. All they had were analysts touting the 300,000 + troops plan. ....Then again, all they are is Socialist scumbags, right? Ironically, the CNN strategy may have worked.

PS - IT'S TOO LATE NOW!!!!!

at the time of the invasion i was watching & reading about everything iraq & there were quite a few retired military people echoing the powell doctrine of overwhelming force...but rumsfled & cheney had other ideas...too bad.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top