NYT: Buildup in Iraq Needed Into ’08, U.S. General Says

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08military.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008, military officials said Wednesday.

The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are sent or more units are held over.

The confidential recommendation by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, reflects the military’s new counterinsurgency doctrine, which puts a premium on sustained efforts to try to win over a wary population. It also stems from the complex logistics of deploying the five additional combat brigades that are being sent to Iraq as part of what the White House calls a “surge” of forces.

In fact, for now, it is really more of a trickle, since only two of the five brigades are in Iraq. The American military is stretched so thin that the last of the brigades is not expected to begin operations until June.

In both the House and the Senate, most Democrats and many Republicans have made clear their opposition even to the current troop increase, and a decision by the White House to extend its duration would probably intensify the political debate over the war.

[Monkeyman]

1. Send more over so they can rot in Military Hospitals

[saigon68]

2. This asshole would go back to Nam to WIN THERE

These jerks still think they can win---- if only they stay a decade or 2 and kill the entire (except for the capitalist class) islamic population.

[brer cat]

3. Sadly, I think you are right!

[IndianaGreen]

8. And there will be those that will say that we lost Iraq because of weak kneed liberals

German generals blamed that Austrian corporal for losing the war, while they cheered him when they were winning.

[Barrett808]

4. Ah, so the word "escalation" was correct after all.

After all that talk about "surge" vs. "escalation."

:eyes:

[ShockediSay]

9. Let's just throw more US troop bodies on the pile, and see what happens

:sarcasm:

[Barrett808]

17. Bush will throw bodies onto the fire as long as we let him... n/t

[donkeyotay]

18. Exactly. The surge wasn't a surge. A surge is temporary.

The have escalated our involvement there. They've gone into neighborhoods and promised not to leave. In 2008 they'll be saying we need more troops to support the ones we just sent.

[grytpype]

5. It's still not enough to stabilize the country.

If it were possible to deploy enough troops to actually stabilize Iraq, I would say do it. But there's no way we can send enough troops.

[VegasWolf]

6. Unless Bush gives up on the pipe dream that the Iraqis will allow him to steal their oil. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Temporary escalation joins the other three great lies. nt.

[Triana]

10. Just long enough to dump this mess on the new Dem President...

...to clean up.

[maddezmom]

11. U.S. to Have Additional Forces in Iraq by June, Petraeus Says

U.S. to Have Additional Forces in Iraq by June, Petraeus Says

By Robin Stringer

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said the deployment of 21,500 additional soldiers and Marines will be complete by early June.

``We are receiving about one brigade per month,'' he said today in a news conference televised from Baghdad by the Pentagon. ``The combat forces should all be here and into location by early June.''

President George W. Bush ordered the reinforcements in January to improve security amid a growing insurgency against foreign forces and violence between Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni Muslim minority that has threatened to escalate into a full-scale civil war.

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who reports to Petraeus as the coalition's operational commander, recommended that the increased force levels be maintained until February 2008, the New York Times reported today. The newspaper cited a confidential assessment Odierno has handed to Petraeus, who has yet to make a formal recommendation of how long the extra troops should stay.

Petraeus recommended the U.S. deploy 7,000 support personnel in addition to the 21,500 troops undertaking combat roles. The administration asked the Democratic-controlled Congress to approve spending for 4,000 support personnel. The need for the support troops was ``always anticipated,'' Petraeus said today.

more:http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ac1bRIjRluUU

[rodeodance]

12. We were lead to believe that this Surge was to late fall----now we hear

this!!!111

[rodeodance]

13. Rec.

[rodeodance]

14. This is major news DUMP--before he takes off to LatinAm.!!

[rodeodance]

15. "would probably intensify the political debate over the war." PROBABLY??????????

[rodeodance]

16. .....Any extension of the troop buildup would add to the strain.....

.....Any extension of the troop buildup would add to the strain on Army and Marine forces that have already endured years of continuous deployments. According to the current schedule, a Minnesota National Guard brigade whose Iraq deployment was extended as part of the troop reinforcement is to leave in August. A senior Pentagon official said that the number of forces would be down to “presurge” levels in December unless additional units were sent or kept longer.

Decisions need to be made soon, Army officials say, to identify potential replacement units or extensions. To meet troop requirements, the Army would need to look seriously at mobilizing additional National Guard units later this year.

Another point of stress is the amount of time active duty units have spent in the United States between deployments. It takes around a year at home to prepare a combat brigade for Iraq. The Army generally has been able to avoid sending units back to Iraq or Afghanistan without at least a year at home.

But if Mr. Bush decides to extend the buildup, the first of the Army brigades to return to Iraq with less than a year at home are likely to do so later this year.

[donkeyotay]

19. Do I have this right?

The troops go into neighborhoods and drive out the insurgents (who appear to be suspiciously absent ahead of their arrival), and then the big difference is that this time we are going to hold the neighborhoods. We're staying. So, the more territory you are going to hold, the more troops you need. Now, we have promised these people that they can come out because "we're not leaving." If we do leave, the insurgency can regain control and the people who trusted us will be killed.

This is not a surge. How can it be? We will not be able to extract ourselves from this expanded commitment. It is also extremely hazardous to the troops, and Petreaus said something to the effect of expecting "spectacular" attacks.

So, what I'm missing is, "how does this make any sense?" At best, we have deepened the quagmire. How will leaving be any easier in 2008, or was that the purpose all along? After all, they still don't have those oil contracts signed.