Army tour of duty in Iraq 'must be longer' than a year

Funny that this was never reported in US news that I can remember?


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1066565672385

The US army will not be able to sustain current force levels in Iraq beyond next spring unless it extends the tour of duty of its active units to more than the current year, the Congressional Budget Office said yesterday.

The Pentagon's decision this summer to extend the tour of duty of US troops in Iraq to a full year had already provoked strong criticism.

Douglas HoltzEakin, director of the CBO, told the US House of Representatives armed services committee yesterday that "the active army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief".

The CBO said the army did not have enough active component forces "to simultaneously maintain the occupation at its current size, limit deployments to one year, and sustain all of its other commitments" - as the Pentagon had planned.

more

or bring in other nations.

Whistle-Ass would tell the troops in Iraq... Some of you will have to do 18 months for the old US OF A

sure felt like a DRAFT headed this way, and if Darth Rummy pulls off another CEO type of "shooting from the hip" knee jerk decision, he'll probably rip up those year long orders and just extend them to whenever. "Did I say one year? No, I meant t least one year soldier, now unpack your guard and get back to your post at that oil field!"