E&P/AP: 'Surge' Gets Bigger -- A True Escalation

Editor&Publisher: AP: 'Surge' Gets Bigger -- A True Escalation
Published: March 09, 2007

WASHINGTON President Bush's troop buildup in Baghdad apparently will be bigger and more costly - and perhaps last longer - than it seemed when he unveiled the plan in January as the centerpiece of a new Iraq strategy.

U.S. officials say it's too early to tell whether the troop reinforcements will succeed in containing the sectarian and insurgent violence, but it looks as though the Pentagon is preparing for an expanded commitment - assuming that by summer there are solid signs that the extra effort is yielding significant results.

The Bush plan called for sending 21,500 extra U.S. combat troops to Iraq - mainly to Baghdad - with the last of five brigades arriving by June. The estimated price tag was $5.6 billion. Officials have refused to say exactly how long it would last, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates had suggested that it could be over by fall.

In recent days a different picture has emerged.

The total number of troops required for the plan, while still uncertain, is climbing. When Bush announced the boost of 21,500 combat troops, the Pentagon said still others would be required to go with them in support roles. Its initial estimate of 2,400 support troops has doubled and may go higher still.

The cost also is rising. Administration officials conferred with lawmakers this week about an extra $1 billion, on top of the original $5.6 billion. The actual cost depends on how long the troop reinforcement is sustained....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003556700

hmmm. let's do the math.

21,500
4,800
+10,000
--------
36,300 at least.
The ten figure was bandied about as not just more support troops, but guards for prisons, military police, supply and transport handlers, and more maintenance folks for the equipment that is already falling apart at the seems.

At this rate, comparisons to VietNam seem closer and closer.

Pentagon struggles to find fresh troops
Pentagon struggles to find fresh troops By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
26 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Military leaders are struggling to choose Army units to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan longer or go there earlier than planned, but five years of war have made fresh troops harder to find.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2762072

He lied. Again.

Cher

They are like God now

Unless you really like being lied to, made a fool of, and selling insurance or other plebian work after the next election....

Never in the history of modern warfare has such a thing been proposed. Hell, in Vietnam, it was a 10:1 TAIL to tooth ratio. That is to say, 10 support and logistic personnel for every combat troop. A 10:1 tooth to tail ratio is surely a remarkable lie.

The ones where civilians sign up for minimum wages, but room and board! to go do support work. Leading to the obvious question about that, who would be stupid enough to do THAT?

And despite that the proposed numbers still look ridiculous.

why Dems (and some 'Pugs) in Congress were suddenly so vehemently against THIS "surge" as opposed to all of the other troop increases of the past couple of years. This explains it--they knew what was happening. We are not going anywhere--we're there to stay, right in Baghdad, protecting the huge-ass embassy/green zone. The American people have been lied to, again-- we were told this was a last-ditch attempt to stabilize the situation. The only good news is that this should sink the GOP in 2008.

Enlisting.

After high school.

They have no money for college.

They must be making offers they can't refuse.

:cry:

What I'm shocked at is that anyone would actually believe a word that came from Bush or anyone associated with Bush.

:kick:

Bush approves 4,400 more troops for Iraq 11 Mar 2007

President (sic)George W Bush has approved adding 4,400 more US troops to a force buildup already ordered to try to bring security to Iraq, the White House said today.

Bush formally requested about $US3.2 billion ($NZ4.73 billion) to pay for the additional deployment, even as he and Democratic lawmakers battle over his Iraq strategy.

In January, Bush said he would deploy 21,500 more US troops to Iraq to try to stabilise Baghdad and restive Anbar province.

The new US military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has since said more troops will be needed in support of that troop buildup.

<snip>

more troops won't save this SOB's legacy. No more funds to squander and no more troops to be killed.

more troops, or as one group wanted...100,000. So I guess the general does not need to worry.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1145

"MURPHY: Well, the president has ordered them to go, and, you know, the reality of it is, I think all of us here at home need to pray for them. We’re looking at what we can do in Congress right now. We obviously have a supplemental coming up, and we look forward to -- You know, we were having these hearings. The reality of it is, is, you know, they didn’t even talk about it for the past six years. You know, they had a Congress that didn’t like to ask the tough questions.

And, you know, I, you know, General Pace—I served under him, obviously, you know, Keith, that I served in the military, just got off of active duty a few years ago. And, you know, I talked to him about the training of the Iraqis. I talked to him about the readiness issue.

And Congress, you know, has finally asked him, you know, Do you need more troops? Do you need more troops? Under Rumsfeld, they never needed more troops. And now they’re saying, We need 92,000 more. So we’re looking at how we could do that for them."

Oh, but wait. won't that mean that all those Dems voting for any surge will need to send their children as well?

many will be rotating back for yet another tour sooner than expected.

It sucks to be them.

:sarcasm:

to see an increase in personnel ahead of mass detentions

Bush Seeks Funds For MPs In Iraq
3:55 pm, 11 Mar 2007

The United States President George Bush has asked Congress to cut over US$4 billion from federal programmes to finance more than two thousand more military police for Iraq.

The top US commander in Iraq has requested 2,200 more US military police to oversee detainees in Baghdad.

General David Petraeus has requested the troops in addition to the 21,500 combat troops being sent to Iraq as part of the President's planned “surge” in US forces.

President Bush has made the request for the cuts to House and Senate leaders, who with their Democratic majorities, have been debating ways to bring the Iraq war to an end.

http://www.newswire.co.nz/main/viewstory.aspx?storyid=362602&catid=16

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iraq.html

Saturday, March 10, 2007 · Last updated 8:43 p.m. PT

Bush seeks 8,200 more troops for wars

By DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER



MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay -- President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.

in check and draw the line.

W is traipsing around the world asking for our taxes to be spent on wars without reason and the Latinos job creation and health care.


Meanwhile, we've been told to bite the bullet for our infrastructure and health needs.

the bush family should have enough money between them to employ their own foreign legion maybe with a bit of help from their Saudi friends?

Maybe he could give us taxpayers a refund?

The rest of us can go choke a rope...

till the military is mowing your grass and waxing your bikini line. Then he will feel secure living in this country.

Congress will have to stop the war now, before we are totally bankrupted by this idiotic war.

is being implemented in haste. If the Chinese continue funding the madness the pukelicans can only achieve larger debt. If the Chinese stop that funding they get stuck with the bill for a failed nation. Financial musical chairs, so to speak.

Both parties are simply running out the clock on this debacle, safe in the knowledge that, while we may shout and complain a lot, they're dinner-party schedule won't be affected.

We're over two months into this congress and nothing has changed. bush's killing and torture spree continues unabated.

We've got a nice little undeclared war rolling along in Jolo--and if you think US troops there are avoiding combat, think about Vietnam in 1964, when US "advisors" were doing much the same thing.

Then there's the curious timing and place of the announcement, in a continent in which the US is managing half a dozen miniature drug wars (so that we can select our suppliers) and is desperately trying to create an insurgent force to restore the oligarchy in Venezuela.

There's protection of the distribution lines for Afghani heroin through the 'Stans into Europe, illegal weapons distributions in the former Yugoslavia, the overthrow of the occasional oil-rich African nation such as Sao Tome and Principe, infrastructure yet undestroyed in Lebanon, and Russian crime-lords to placate and nurture.

And there's always the possibility Americans might get wise to the game here at home and demand something like justice, which would require a lot of wet-jobs to defuse here at home.

Oh, no. Managing the largest criminal empire the world has ever seen is hard work for our President. He's going to need a lot more freedom-loving patriots to lay down their lives so he can maintain it.

Bush seeks 8,200 more troops for wars
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 59 minutes ago

President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.

Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.

In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.

More at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_14

I think that says it all.

It didn't take long for this latest ploy to fail, did it? It's time for Congress to shut off the money and troop taps.

Which is it with these people or is it both?

re-election in their districts that much more difficult. At some point I wonder if even stalwart party Thugs begin to tell Bush to cram it.

That point ought to have come long before now, but then I remind myself we're dealing with Republicans.

The Iraq war is horrifying for our soldiers, and certainly for the Iraqis, whose country we assaulted and destroyed.

He is still the "Decider"!

Not a fucking thing. We are badly in need of a revolution.

President George W. Bush is to send 8,200 more US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan – a move that will cost $3.2bn.

The Pentagon will send a brigade of 3,500 troops to Afghanistan to focus on training Afghan security forces. The move comes on the heels of the president’s decision to extend the tours of a separate group of 3,500 soldiers in preparation for the Taliban’s spring offensive, which the US and Nato expect to be tougher than previous years.

“The additional troops will be involved in training the Afghan army and police forces,” said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. “The president talked about the need to speed and expand this process last month.”

Mr Bush will send a further 4,700 troops to complement the military “surge” in Iraq that began last month. The new troops will include 2,400 combat support troops and 2,200 military police to deal with the expected rise in detainees as US and Iraqi forces clamp down on sectarian militias.<snip>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/42d5b114-cff2-11db-94cb-000b5df10621.html