FingerLakes1.com Forums
Topic Options
#581154 --- 05/24/07 01:29 PM U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007
·The number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 to more than 200,000.
·There will be as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas.
·U.S. will extend tours of duty for troops already there.
WASHINGTON, May 23 -- The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, the Hearst Newspaper said on Wednesday.
Based on its own analysis of Pentagon deployment orders, the paper drew a conclusion that there will be another troop "surge" in Iraq this year as additional support troops will be sent there.
The ongoing buildup could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year, if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades, it said.
The paper estimated that there will be as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas.
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, it said.
The "surge" of troops to Iraq is being executed by deploying more combat brigades to the country and extending tours of duty for troops already there.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, the U.S. commander who led NATO troops into Bosnia in late 1995, said some of the projected reinforcements could reflect an effort by the Bush administration to "get the number of troops into Iraq that we've needed there all along."
The little-noticed efforts are being carried out without the fanfare that accompanied President George W. Bush's initial troop reinforcements for Iraq in January.
"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it. I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this," said Nash.
"The problem is that it comes at a time when everybody else is saying that we should call it a day," Nash said. "Most folks want us leaving -- not arriving," he said.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#581269 --- 05/24/07 05:09 PM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Retired Soldier]
Sausage Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/03
Posts: 6378
Loc: The Meat Grinder
Well it IS about time! I say put 500 thousand troops in there!
_________________________
Everybody wants to rule the world..

Top
#581313 --- 05/24/07 07:06 PM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Sausage]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
Well, even if we had to call up all the Air Force Reserve security policemen and convert them to light weapons infantrymen and keep them there for 15 month tours?
Why don't you volunteer and show the way?

Top
#581338 --- 05/24/07 07:58 PM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Retired Soldier]
Sausage Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/03
Posts: 6378
Loc: The Meat Grinder
whjy should I? Im retired and should be due my retirement pay. Besides, who in the AF wants to hire back a bisexual? LOL
_________________________
Everybody wants to rule the world..

Top
#581347 --- 05/24/07 08:12 PM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Retired Soldier]
Josephus Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 08/25/00
Posts: 11561
Loc: NYS
Has the Busher come up with a way to

A. Pay for this?

and...

B. Find enough troops in ranks to cover the increase?
_________________________
I don't want my country back... I want my country forward!

Top
#581353 --- 05/24/07 08:19 PM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Josephus]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
That, of course, is the problem. We don't have the troops to maintain 500,000 in Iraq. bush2 doesn't worry about paying for it because he is not paying for the war now. It is all off budget on "emergency" supplementals.
The other problem is that when running a race you can "kick" and put everything you have into the last half mile because you know the race is over when you reach the finish line. We have no "finish" line. The best guesses are that it will take over 10 years to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. However, we cannot maintain our present or a larger troop presence in Iraq that long.
Of course, bush2 doesn't care because he is history in January '08.

Top
#581909 --- 05/26/07 02:54 AM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Retired Soldier]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
"Of course, bush2 doesn't care because he is history in January '08."

Really? What's going to happen to him in 1/08?
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#581957 --- 05/26/07 10:37 AM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: VM Smith]
Retired Soldier Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 12/23/05
Posts: 12945
Loc: Rochester, NY
I misposted. Part of it is wishful thinking. You are correct. WE are not rid of him until January 2008.

There is also a struggle going on within the administration about Iraq. Belatedly, some are arguing for a reduction of troops and a shift of their mission to follow the recommendations of the ISG. It will be interesting to see which faction wins. bush2 even admitted that the September review of the progress of the surge is a deadline.

White House Said to Debate ’08 Cut in Iraq Troops by 50%
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID S. CLOUD
WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

The mission would instead focus on the training of Iraqi troops and fighting Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, while removing Americans from many of the counterinsurgency efforts inside Baghdad.



Edited by Retired Soldier (05/26/07 10:45 AM)

Top
#582350 --- 05/28/07 06:51 AM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: Retired Soldier]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
"WE are not rid of him until January 2008."

Unless he resigns, is impeached, or dies, WE are not rid of him until January 2009, when his term ends. And whoever wrote the headline for Sanger and Cloud should be told that a reduction from 146 to 100 is closer to a 30% reduction than to a 50% reduction.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#582362 --- 05/28/07 09:50 AM Re: U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007 [Re: VM Smith]
AbuDhabi Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 6474
Loc: Doha, Qatar
I think this must be the New Math thread.

Quote:
U.S. to double combat troops in Iraq in 2007
·The number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 to more than 200,000.
_________________________
"I have no known mental disorder ." -CCT

Top