AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Benjamin Franklin: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." article below ------------------------ Bush could double force by Christmas Stewart M. Powell, Hearst Newspapers Tuesday, May 22, 2007 http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/22/MNG7QPV65N1.DTL 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Should have gone in with overwhelming numbers in the first damn place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 It is true several Generals that were since let to retirement said several hundred thousand troops BEFORE the war even started. If that is what it is going to take, then they should do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 anyone actually look at the graph? i'll be honost i didn't read the article, but the graph just makes me laugh. you see a trend of peaks a drops in the graph, but then when you get to the very end, what looks like what will just be another peak they decided to just continue the line up as the trend. here's my version of the graph (my estimate in red) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 anyone actually look at the graph? i'll be honost i didn't read the article, but the graph just makes me laugh. you see a trend of peaks a drops in the graph, but then when you get to the very end, what looks like what will just be another peak they decided to just continue the line up as the trend. here's my version of the graph (my estimate in red) Yeah, I suspect that what the SFC's experts (who have no agenda whatsoever) did was to look at all of the troops that are being sent over there, and to say that well, if they don't rotate any of the current troops back home, then the number could be as high as . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Yeah, I suspect that what the SFC's experts (who have no agenda whatsoever) did was to look at all of the troops that are being sent over there, and to say that well, if they don't rotate any of the current troops back home, then the number could be as high as . . . But I like the direction the line was going. Did they think it would upset me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Shouldn't have gone in in the first damn place,but if we did we should have done so with overwhelming numbers Fixed that for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 My friend was just sent to training before he's being sent over. He's supposed to be there for a year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Should have gone in with overwhelming numbers in the first damn place. Rumsfeld didn't think we needed them. Anyone else notice the troop surge came on the heels of Rumsfeld's departure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Rumsfeld didn't think we needed them. Anyone else notice the troop surge came on the heels of Rumsfeld's departure? Well i guess i should be SecDef then. Destino, bring me the A-Team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 My friend was just sent to training before he's being sent over. He's supposed to be there for a year i got a friend who joined the marines, last i heard he's in infantry school. apparently he went through boot camp with a broken foot and didnt realize it till afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 i got a friend who joined the marines, last i heard he's in infantry school. apparently he went through boot camp with a broken foot and didnt realize it till afterwards. He's in infrantry school right now in NC, he's supposed to come back July 4th, and then he's gone to Iraq. He's also a Marine. He got sick when he was at boot camp because some of the dummys wouldnt take showers because they didnt want to shower in a group :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Should have gone in with overwhelming numbers in the first damn place. Absolutely. This is an enemy that does not know it is/was defeated - some of the problem (though I do not know the extent) was likely the 4th Infantry Division missing out on the initial assault and not going through the Triangle of Death. If the goal is no longer more hearts and minds crapola concerning the problem areas, and we allow our troops to go on the offensive unimpeded and start wiping these pricks out en masse with a full on counter-insurgency style of attack then I'm aboard. I don't see any other way except to make it as painful as possible for the militia in Sadr city and the Sunni insurgents in and around the Triangle. It's way past time for a lesson IMO for these animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 anyone actually look at the graph? i'll be honost i didn't read the article, but the graph just makes me laugh. you see a trend of peaks a drops in the graph, but then when you get to the very end, what looks like what will just be another peak they decided to just continue the line up as the trend. here's my version of the graph (my estimate in red) Read the article it explains the graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 My friend was just sent to training before he's being sent over. He's supposed to be there for a year We have young people in our community who have had their tours extended, don't be surprised is your friend gets the same treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well i guess i should be SecDef then. Destino, bring me the A-Team. They're busy but I can get you the power rangers on short notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I saw something about raising the age limit to 42 for the army and starting to recruit outside of the country, like Mexico. I don't know how true it is, but it would definitly inflate the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 I saw something about raising the age limit to 42 for the army and starting to recruit outside of the country, like Mexico. I don't know how true it is, but it would definitly inflate the numbers. Yeah, and they could offer citizenship in exchange for service to those in Mexico, and other undocumented persons currently in the US. Hmmmm, now where have I heard this before? Oh I remember this is what the Roman empire did. Not really a model that I think the US should emulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnjudy Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Yeah, and they could offer citizenship in exchange for service to those in Mexico, and other undocumented persons currently in the US. Hmmmm, now where have I heard this before? Oh I remember this is what the Roman empire did. Not really a model that I think the US should emulate. I believe they are illegal immigrants, not undocumented. We can sustain a short term doubling of the military in Iraq to stop the violence. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 I believe they are illegal immigrants, not undocumented. Potato, potato. We can sustain a short term doubling of the military in Iraq to stop the violence. Why not? Sure while we're at it let me just throw a couple extra gallons on that fire to make it go out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnjudy Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Potato, potato.Sure while we're at it let me just throw a couple extra gallons on that fire to make it go out. As long as we keep killing terrorist/insurgent terrorists everyday. Why doesn't the news focus on our continued genecide on terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share Posted May 23, 2007 As long as we keep killing terrorist/insurgent terrorists everyday. Why doesn't the news focus on our continued genecide on terrorists. Ok, allow me to introduce myself, I'm a Christian Pacifist (read non-violent resistance), so as long as you're talking about continued killing by either side, and genocide of people, we're probably not going to agree. hence the sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Yeah, and they could offer citizenship in exchange for service to those in Mexico, and other undocumented persons currently in the US. Hmmmm, now where have I heard this before? Oh I remember this is what the Roman empire did. Not really a model that I think the US should emulate. They do this to a degree now, although not to illegals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artnjudy Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Ok, allow me to introduce myself, I'm a Christian Pacifist (read non-violent resistance), so as long as you're talking about continued killing by either side, and genocide of people, we're probably not going to agree. hence the sig. Sounds like a combination of Buddhism and Christianity. I do not want my freedom overthrown by radicals like the non-violent resistent Buddhists did in Mongolia. We will never agree because I respect anyone who destroys evil in the world and practices peace and freedom their own society. We will not have that if we don't fervently defend it. I assume you would have non-violently destroyed Nazi Germany.:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 This is an enemy that does not know it is/was defeated ...and that's because it isn't/wasn't defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.