LATimes: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

[chomerics]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,7546033.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

General: Appeals for More Troops Were Denied

Three retired soldiers slam Rumsfeld's policies at a Democratic hearing in which the party tries to take the offensive on the war in Iraq.

By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer

September 26, 2006

WASHINGTON — Adding to criticism of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq, a retired senior general who commanded an infantry division in the conflict said Monday that requests by commanders for more soldiers were repeatedly turned down.

"Many of us routinely asked for more troops," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste said, contradicting statements by President Bush and his senior aides that the administration had given the military all the resources it had asked for.

"There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today."

The general's remarks, echoed by two other retired soldiers Monday, came at a special hearing called by Democratic senators in what they said was a new initiative to increase oversight of the war effort.

Senior Republican lawmakers dismissed the hearing as a stunt orchestrated with November elections in mind.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to address Batiste's comments directly, instead pointing to past public statements by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Rumsfeld had regularly consulted the senior military leadership on troop levels.

In April, when retired generals including Batiste called for Rumsfeld to resign, Pace said: "We had then [in Iraq invasion planning] and have now every opportunity to speak our minds, and if we do not, shame on us, because the opportunity is there."

Batiste's comments added fuel to questions about how the administration pursued its goals in Iraq and about the war's consequences.

Several newspapers, including The Times, reported Sunday that the nation's intelligence agencies had concluded that the Iraq war intensified the threat of global terrorism.

Administration officials responded that the articles on the war assessment contained in the classified National Intelligence Estimate did not represent the full report.

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continued to discount the news reports. "One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse," Snow said.

The senior Republican and Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee called Monday for the document to be declassified, a request the administration is resisting.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement that the disclosure of the assessment and the testimony at Democrats' hearing dealt "a fatal blow to any claim that staying the current course is an acceptable strategy for success in Iraq."

Batiste, in his testimony, renewed his April call for Rumsfeld to resign. Joining him were retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes.

All three of them Iraq veterans, they lambasted what they called the Defense secretary's reluctance to commit more troops and other resources to the war.

"The whole thing is absolutely disingenuous," Batiste said of the administration's position that the number of soldiers deployed was sufficient to secure Iraq. "We started with a strategy and a plan that was under-resourced in soldiers and Marines and airmen and sailors by a factor of three."

A career Army officer — and military aide to then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war — Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division from 2002 until his retirement in 2005. Batiste commanded about 22,000 soldiers sent to north-central Iraq from February 2004 to February 2005.

Eaton, who oversaw efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces in 2003 and 2004, also said he was not given enough U.S. troops to do the job.

About 145,000 American troops are serving in Iraq.

In the run-up to the March 2003 invasion, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki drew harsh criticism from administration officials for predicting that "hundreds of thousands" of U.S. troops might be needed to keep the peace in a postwar Iraq.

Batiste and Eaton said Monday that a lack of troops was helping fuel the anti-U.S. insurgency. And Batiste went a step further, suggesting that insufficient troop levels contributed to the abuse of Iraqis by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities.

As the violence in Iraq has continued, the administration has faced increasing criticism that it went to war with an inadequate force and failed to anticipate the problems of rebuilding.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of all U.S. troops in the Middle East, has argued that higher troop levels would be counterproductive because they would anger local communities and undercut Iraqi forces' incentive for taking over security responsibilities.

For Democrats — often divided over the war and on the defensive because of White House and Republican congressional leaders' charges that the Democrats want to "cut and run" — Monday's hearing was an attempt to take the offensive.

"I hope this here will be a wake-up call to our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate to start having hearings, to start doing their congressional responsibility," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Still, the party faces a challenge in formulating an alternative approach.

Responding to questions by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Batiste, Eaton and Hammes strongly warned against an early withdrawal of American forces from Iraq — a position that several leading Democrats in Congress have advocated.

Clinton has not supported early withdrawal but has said that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-iraqpol26sep26,1,7546033.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

So much for "When the generals ask for more troops, we will give them more troops" huh :doh:

Can someone tell me why we have LESS personel in the military NOW than we did in 2000???

On 9-11 we had 1,130,328 active personnel in the military. . .

As of March 06 we have 1,082,552.

Can someone please tell me why we have LESS military than before 9-11? Oh yea, Clinton right? :doh:

[Zen-like Todd]

Please don't use words like Cabal, particularly when they aren't in the article. It makes you sound like Baculus.

[chomerics]

Please don't use words like Cabal, particularly when they aren't in the article. It makes you sound like Baculus.

I was thinking Junta too, but I will change the title

[Redskins Diehard]

Please don't use words like Cabal, particularly when they aren't in the article. It makes you sound like Baculus.

He just learned the word...it was in the Hate Bush word of the day calendar.

I am sure someone will be along that always jumps on AFC about thread titles to jump on him...right guys?

[Redskins Diehard]

No point reinventing the wheel.

10. When posting anything concerning news articles from outside sources, please include a direct link (i.e., URL) to the origination page/site. Please paste the URL directly atop the post, above a small portion of the article's text (for example, the lead paragraph or a particular sentence or two) . Such a practice provides credibility and attribution to the source of the information, and allows visitors the option to visit the respective websites. You are responsible for the content you post.

If you are posting a published article from a news source, please title your thread in the following format: "SOURCE SHORTFORM: HEADLINE" (Ex. WP: Redskins Sign CB Shawn Springs). Please see our copyright statement:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131906

[@DCGoldPants]

you're late. He changed the title. Something that AFC never does, and you never tell him to do. When it is CLEARLY in the rules of this forum.

To the topic on hand.

I can't say I'm shocked. However, I hope this leads to the current Generals getting the troops and support he needs.

[rincewind]

you're late. He changed the title. Something that AFC never does, and you never tell him to do. When it is CLEARLY in the rules of this forum.

To the topic on hand.

I can't say I'm shocked. However, I hope this leads to the current Generals getting the troops and support he needs.

Actually, he still hasn't completely complied with the rule stated. C'mon Chom, don't stoop to AFC's level.

[zoony]

He just learned the word...it was in the Hate Bush word of the day calendar.

:rotflmao:

THAT was funny

[Redskins Diehard]

you're late. He changed the title. Something that AFC never does, and you never tell him to do. When it is CLEARLY in the rules of this forum.

To the topic on hand.

I can't say I'm shocked. However, I hope this leads to the current Generals getting the troops and support he needs.

See above you for the post...he is still wrong. And I hardly have to jump on AFC.

On to the topic at hand.

When/if the Central Command(or a former central command commander) or the CJCS comes out and says that they are not getting what they need then I will be first in line to bash with the rest of you. As I have Rumsfeld for ignoring GEN Shinseki

[Sarge]

Can someone tell me why we have LESS personel in the military NOW than we did in 2000???

Can someone please tell me why we have LESS military than before 9-11? Oh yea, Clinton right? :doh:

Oh my achin' ASS

How many friggin times do I have to post this? We have a finite military budget. We find ourselves having to modernize and bring systems online that should have been on line ten years ago. Hence, the money has to come from somewhere.

Now it's coming from the personnel budget,and will next year as well

Do I agree with that? Nope, and it's one of the reasons I decided to retire

[Zen-like Todd]

you're late. He changed the title. Something that AFC never does, and you never tell him to do. When it is CLEARLY in the rules of this forum.

To the topic on hand.

I can't say I'm shocked. However, I hope this leads to the current Generals getting the troops and support he needs.

Im not sure if you're replying to me, but he hadn't changed the title until after I made that request.

To be honest, I havent been in the Tailgate in months until the last week or so, and I wasn't even thinking about any forum rules. It was just a personal request.

[Sarge]

He still hasn't put a link in there

I have a suspicion its www.whackoleftistcommunitstimes.com

[chomerics]

Oh my achin' ASS

How many friggin times do I have to post this? We have a finite military budget. We find ourselves having to modernize and bring systems online that should have been on line ten years ago. Hence, the money has to come from somewhere.

Sarge, please explain this to me then, and tell me where I am wrong. . .

The budget for the military in 2001 was $291,202 Billion Dollars and we had 1,130,328 active military personnel.

The budget for the military in 2006 is $447,398 Billion Dollars (not including Iraq) and we have 1,082,552 active military personnel.

Why is it that we have increased funding by over 50%, yet reduced the workforce? We are at war Sarge, remember? This money does not account for the Iraq costs either.

You see Sarge, for ever I have been saying the republicans are pro-complex and anti-soldier. They believe in the weapons, toys and bloated government contracts, but they do not believe in a strong military. I, OTOH, would rather we sepnd the money on getting more troops, and actually focusing the money on those troops, not some $100 Billion dollar program to campaign donators which does nothing to our security, but fattens cronies pockets. . .

[chomerics]

He still hasn't put a link in there

I have a suspicion its www.whackoleftistcommunitstimes.com

What the hell are you talking about, the link for the article has been in there since the first post :doh:

[@DCGoldPants]

Sarge, please explain this to me then, and tell me where I am wrong. . .

The budget for the military in 2001 was $291,202 Billion Dollars and we had 1,130,328 active military personnel.

The budget for the military in 2006 is $447,398 Billion Dollars (not including Iraq) and we have 1,082,552 active military personnel.

Why is it that we have increased funding by over 50%, yet reduced the workforce? We are at war Sarge, remember? This money does not account for the Iraq costs either.

You see Sarge, for ever I have been saying the republicans are pro-complex and anti-soldier. They believe in the weapons, toys and bloated government contracts, but they do not believe in a strong military. I, OTOH, would rather we sepnd the money on getting more troops, and actually focusing the money on those troops, not some $100 Billion dollar program to campaign donators which does nothing to our security, but fattens cronies pockets. . .

increased budget to pay no-bid contracts.

[Sarge]

What the hell are you talking about, the link for the article has been in there since the first post :doh:

IT says it's supposed to be on the top of the post maggot :laugh:

[rincewind]

IT saya it's suposed to be on the top of the post maggot :laugh:

Translation = the closest Sarge has ever come to saying 'oops'. :laugh:

[chomerics]

IT saya it's suposed to be on the top of the post maggot :laugh:

Ahh, I see. . . :laugh:

Care to comment on the article, or are you just going to nitpick on the format it was presented in?

[ChiefBigMeat]

Sarge, please explain this to me then, and tell me where I am wrong. . .

The budget for the military in 2001 was $291,202 Billion Dollars and we had 1,130,328 active military personnel.

The budget for the military in 2006 is $447,398 Billion Dollars (not including Iraq) and we have 1,082,552 active military personnel.

Why is it that we have increased funding by over 50%, yet reduced the workforce? We are at war Sarge, remember? This money does not account for the Iraq costs either.

You see Sarge, for ever I have been saying the republicans are pro-complex and anti-soldier. They believe in the weapons, toys and bloated government contracts, but they do not believe in a strong military. I, OTOH, would rather we sepnd the money on getting more troops, and actually focusing the money on those troops, not some $100 Billion dollar program to campaign donators which does nothing to our security, but fattens cronies pockets. . .

There are certain subjects the Right-Wingers on here never respond to ...

This is a great example of the "game over" post :applause:

[Redskins Diehard]

Ahh, I see. . . :laugh:

Care to comment on the article, or are you just going to nitpick on the format it was presented in?

I did comment on the article. But nobody has responded to my comments.

[Sarge]

Sarge, please explain this to me then, and tell me where I am wrong. . .

The budget for the military in 2001 was $291,202 Billion Dollars and we had 1,130,328 active military personnel.

The budget for the military in 2006 is $447,398 Billion Dollars (not including Iraq) and we have 1,082,552 active military personnel.

Why is it that we have increased funding by over 50%, yet reduced the workforce? We are at war Sarge, remember? This money does not account for the Iraq costs either.

You see Sarge, for ever I have been saying the republicans are pro-complex and anti-soldier. They believe in the weapons, toys and bloated government contracts, but they do not believe in a strong military. I, OTOH, would rather we sepnd the money on getting more troops, and actually focusing the money on those troops, not some $100 Billion dollar program to campaign donators which does nothing to our security, but fattens cronies pockets. . .

Troops cost a buttload of money. You pay troop A for housing. You pay troop A for food. For every one troop A that you have, you have about five extra troops to support the one. A troop in the chow to make grub for troop A. Another troop in the finaince section to make sure troop A gets paid correctly. Another troop in supply for troop A. It goes on and on

That's why they've been civilianizing everything. It's cheaper to pay some goob GS whatever money to do a job than it is to have a troop do it, no matter how low ranking troop A may be.

And again, we have systems coming to fruition that need to be paid for. New air tankers, the F-22 to name a few in the Air Force.

Unless you want to increase the budget, that money has got to come from somewhere, and now it's coming from the personel budget

[Sarge]

There are certain subjects the Right-Wingers on here never respond to ...

This is a great example of the "game over" post :applause:

Ignorance must be eliminated

[Sarge]

Ahh, I see. . . :laugh:

Care to comment on the article, or are you just going to nitpick on the format it was presented in?

I've commented on it before, since the examples are from five years ago.

That was Rummy's little experiment to "Go Light"

I don't agree with it. I much prefer the Powell Doctrine of going with everything and wiping people out

[Thiebear]

They don't need 60k more recruits. They need to use the ones out there better...

[Sarge]

They don't need 60k more recruits. They need to use the ones out there better...

Ehhhhhh...............I don't know about that. We're down to about bare bottom now