The "real" numbers of the surge

[DCJenn]

Got this from the Army Times:

Report claims 50,000 troops could surge

Pentagon disputes Congressional Budget Office estimate
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : February 12, 2007

The Defense Department and the Army are disputing a new report that says the 21,500 additional combat troops being sent to Iraq by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region when all support forces are taken into account.

Defense and service officials say only a fraction of that number would be needed.

The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases its projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces.

“Over the past few years, DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops,” says the five-page report requested by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed Services Committee chairman.

Spratt said the report raises the question of whether even one year at home between deployments can be guaranteed.

“The Pentagon will probably have to relax ‘dwell time’ standards even more,” Spratt said, using the military phrase to describe time at home between deployments.

But speaking to Pentagon reporters Feb. 2, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the CBO study “dramatically overestimates” the numbers needed to support the new American brigades going to Iraq. The CBO study extends through fiscal 2009, while the Defense Department’s estimates only go through fiscal 2007, Gates said.

“When we made the first announcement of the force levels, we acknowledged that there would be some additional support forces,” Gates said. “We think that number — it’s not settled for sure right now — but that number looks like it will be about 10 percent to 15 percent of the number that CBO cited.”

At a Jan. 23 hearing, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he believed the 21,500 increase included four support battalions.

“Right now, we do not anticipate there will be increased combat service support requirements over what is now embedded inside of the brigade combat teams we have,” Schoomaker said.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Kolb said Feb. 1 the support needs of the additional five brigade combat teams will be satisfied by the current support network in Iraq and the support units embedded within those teams.

But the additional support troops included in the budget office estimates are based on the possibility that Schoomaker is wrong, an armed services committee aide said. “While Schoomaker initially said it wouldn’t take extra support troops, CBO doesn’t believe that is possible,” an aide to Skelton said.

Under the administration’s plan, the force increase — already underway — will reach its peak in May. The plan calls for a three-month buildup with a similarly gradual decline when the mission is done. The report does not try to estimate how long the mission might last, looking at only the cost to sustain it for various lengths of time.

Staff writers Gordon Lubold and Matthew Cox contributed to this report.

[DCJenn]

and the 'support' battalions include:

cooks, mechanics, nurses, doctors, pilots, quartermaster staff (they're the ones who get the 'stuff' to the field- everything from food to gasoline to computers), etc.

Interesting, huh? Even if some of the surge are support personnel it looks like the numbers say that not enough support staff would be tasked to go. But, from what we're seeing here of who is being deployed, I'd say the total number of 50k is probably more right than wrong.

Jenn

[Momo]

I heard of these numbers well before he announced the ones in his address to the public.

[Rapunzel]

Not surprised.

Apparently we've struck some serious blows against Al Qaeda in Iraq over the last 48 hours. I imagine that the correct thing to do (this being a war and all) is to attempt to keep gaining momentum. Personally, I wish we would just send over a crushing force (which we should have done to begin with - yes, I believe Rumsfield was wrong with his "less is more" strategy) right now. It's when we're afraid to use the people we have and the weapons we have in the face of completely unscrupulous and unethical enemies that we lose.

Here's the story on our current good news on the Al Qaeda in Iraq front:

Coalition forces in Iraq have delivered a series of stunning blows to al Qaeda in Iraq in the last 48 hours.

A key aide to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the man who replaced Abu Musab al Zarqawi as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, has been captured south of Baghdad. As A.J. Strata notes, the trail to the al Qaeda leader is fresh: the captured aide admitted to meeting with al Masri yesterday.

Since Taji is north of Baghdad, these two al Qaeda IED cell leaders captured by the U.S. in West Taji are not the same as those above. That’s four al Qaeda leaders captured.

But four is such a lonely number. A facilitator of foreign fighters was captured by the Iarqi Army on the Syrian border. And foreign fighters tend to mean al Qaeda.

Not to be outdone by the IA, the U.S. struck two houses where foreign fighters had gathered—-13 jihadis dead. An “individual” associated with foreign fighter facilitation was in the targeted area.

But wait, that’s not all. Coalition Forces conducted an air strike Wednesday targeting an al-Qaida in Iraq-related vehicle-borne improvised explosives devices network near Arab Jabour. Intelligence reports indicated that this network is responsible for a large and devastating number of VBIED attacks in the Baghdad area. They are also responsible for IED and sniper attacks conducted against the Iraqi people and Iraqi and Coalition Forces. Building destroyed, everyone inside presumably dead.

And another terrorist was captured in Taji. In addition to leading a bombing cell, he is also believed to be involved in taking Iraqis hostage and murdering them. Which would mean that he is either al Qaeda or one of the related organizations under the umbrella of the “Islamic State of Iraq”.

So, we have 6 al Qaeda leaders captured, and possibly dozens more killed. All in the last 48 hours.

see:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/worl ... qaida.html

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=21

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=21

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=21

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=21

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186457.php

[DCJenn]

First, I don't think we should have gone in there at all. BUT dammit, if we're going to do it- then do it right. It's been mismanaged from the start.

I personally don't think this piddly amount of people is going to do anything except kill off more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. and there's nothing to indicate that the Iraqi Army or police forces are able take over.

We all just need to wrap our head around the fact that this is going to be like North Korea, Germany and Japan. We're going to be there for the next 50 years.

Jenn

[Rapunzel]

Hmmmm.... Well, in war if you take out the leaders you do several things including 1)disrupt the enemy's battle plans, 2)create large loss of morale among enemy fighters, 3)possibly destroy enemy strategy (if one of the leaders is the "brains" behind the operation).

It's one of the reasons we had hit missions aimed at taking out Hitler during WWII. It's why JFK had assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. This is one of the most basic principles of warfare - going back since, well, war existed.

It will be like Germany or Japan, no doubt. We still have bases in both countries. We also had a great many naysayers and others vocally against our war with those two countries (and Italy) as well as our subsequent occupation of said nations post-war. I think the difference was our leadership at the time didn't allow those particular voices to influence their strategy, and we didn't have a media that seemed to particularly delight in the demoralization of the American people. Unfortunately, today, our leaders are too, well, soft. We have people in charge who aren't willing to take the war lessons of thousands of years and put them to work. And, we have a media class that is power-groping and greedy.

I do think we should be there - and I agree that if we're going to do it then we should do it right.

[DCJenn]

I think the difference was our leadership at the time didn't allow those particular voices to influence their strategy, and we didn't have a media that seemed to particularly delight in the demoralization of the American people. Unfortunately, today, our leaders are too, well, soft. We have people in charge who aren't willing to take the war lessons of thousands of years and put them to work. And, we have a media class that is power-groping and greedy.

Well there's where we differ. I don't think that the media is delighting in the demoralization of the American people. I think the American people can see for themselves that this has been a half-assed war that has been doomed from the start. Whether that depresses them or not is not the point. Clearly our Commander in Chief doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks, anyway.

Our leaders aren't listening to anyone other than their own circle of people and Congress, regardless of party, can beat their chests ad nauseum and I don't see GWB able to let this one go. The media has finally pulled it's head out of it's collective ass is and is starting to ask the questions that should have been asked years ago, albeit it too little, too late.

So, the situation as I see it is that we have a country that if not in actual civil war, is teetering on the brink. We've effectively ruined the entire municipal governmental system by insisting that the Baathists be removed even though everyone said all along that most of the people were in gov't because it was a job. So there goes anyone who actually knows how to run a government. There's no infrastructure to get the middle class back to work. The unemployment rate is something like 60%. the insurgents have blown up the gas lines as fast as we've been fixing them. The police forces and the military have been infiltrated by various militias.

Adding 21,500 combat troops is going to do nothing to fix any of this. and if the GAO numbers are right and it's closer to 50k people, that's not going to fix anything either. and as much as I think we need to get the hell out of there, if we do so now, we're going to end up in a worse situation. We broke it, we need to fix it.

Next time our leaders decide to go to war, I sincerely hope they think it through and actually listen to the people who actually do the fighting.

Jenn

[DCJenn]

Just an update from today's Post:

Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 16, 2007; Page A13

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said yesterday that the increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the "tip of the iceberg" and will potentially require thousands of additional support troops and trainers, as well as equipment -- further eroding the Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies.

Although final decisions on deployments have not been made, Schoomaker said, U.S. commanders in Iraq have requested an additional 2,500 soldiers to serve as embedded trainers for Iraqi forces, and 5,000 to 6,000 additional soldiers could be needed to provide logistical and other support to the five Army combat brigades flowing into Baghdad.

"We are having to go to some extraordinary measures to ensure we can respond," he said, but he added that even then he could not guarantee the combat units would receive all the translators, civil affairs soldiers and other support troops they request. "We are continuing today to get requests for forces that continue to stress us."

Schoomaker, in one of his last congressional testimonies as Army chief, also made it clear that he had raised concerns in advance about President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq because it would further deplete Army units at home.

"We laid out . . . exactly what the risks are in terms of other contingencies . . . to include my concerns about the lack of adequate dwell time," he said, referring to the fact that active-duty soldiers now spend only about a year at home between 12-month war zone rotations.

Schoomaker noted that Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was "obligated to present any dissenting opinions and he did that, as did we," in discussions on the troop increase with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president. Still, Schoomaker added that "our mission now is to support the commander in chief."

Virtually all of the U.S.-based Army combat brigades are rated as unready to deploy, Army officials say, and to meet the immediate needs in Iraq and Afghanistan they are finding it necessary to transfer personnel and gear to those units now first in line to deploy.

"I am not satisfied with the readiness of our non-deployed forces," Schoomaker told the Senate Armed Services Committee, noting that the increased demands in Iraq and Afghanistan "aggravate that" and increase his concern. "We are in a dangerous period," said Schoomaker, adding that he recently met with his Chinese counterpart, who made it clear that China is scrutinizing U.S. capabilities.

The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, said in the same hearing that his chief concern is that Marines are not training for other types of conflicts beyond the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan -- such as conventional ground wars. "My largest concern has to do with training," he said. "We're not doing amphibious training, we're not doing mountain training," as well as some large-scale exercises, he said.

About 40 percent of Army and Marine Corps equipment is now in Iraq or Afghanistan or undergoing repair or maintenance. To outfit the additional forces for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is drawing gear from prepositioned stocks of armored Humvees, tanks and other major equipment that would not then be available for another conflict, Conway said.

Schoomaker stressed the ongoing need for funding to repair, replace and upgrade Army equipment, criticizing funding shortfalls in 2005 and 2006 that forced layoffs and slowdowns in production at Army repair depots.

Even if the United States were to carry out a significant troop reduction in Iraq, Schoomaker said he would advise going ahead with the Army's plan for a permanent increase of 65,000 active-duty soldiers by 2013. "The Army's too small for the century we're in," he said.

[pstone]

Should just bring back the draft (men and women) and go from there.

[DCJenn]

Yeah well, as much as I'd like the Bush girls in fatigues, it's never going to happen...

holy Crap, whether or not we should be there is water way under the f-ing bridge but if you're going to send in my husband, my friend, my nephew and well, all the others, can we please ensure that they're adequately protected.

and I actually heard someone say that this was a Democratic way to stop the surge....

OMG. SERIOUSLY? Can someone tell me why ensuring that the soldiers are rested and protected is a BAD THING?

J.

Talking about these numbers being personal, did anyone catch the interview with Tammy Duckworth and her husband who is being sent overseas in this deployment? She lost both legs in a helicopter crash in Iraq in November '04. Her husband said he thought he might be deployed, but in another year, and had plans this year to get there house ready for her to live alone, but now he is going in this deployment. They are both very brave in this interview, but I just felt so aweful for them, and for Tammy and her being alone...


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=7455088

Seriously nothing in my life compares to this hardship. I mean couldn't the army like change his deployment timing, and think about the hardship Tammy would have, like the mom who's 3 boys died in WWII (right?) and the army had a crew go out to find the fourth son while fighting in the war, and bring him home? (Saving Private Ryan) I mean seriously didn't Tammy give up enough for the good ol USA? Tammy's husband's last deployment was 19 years ago...

Of course that would be to "nice" right. My family member was putting in papers to retire the Airforce this fall (is coming up to 23 years in service), and got deployed to Kuwait - again - for 3 months, like 3 months before his official retirement. They used some kind of loop hole to make him go, I *think* his total deployment time over in the middle east is close to three years total.... Seems like a bad way to have someone retire. I mean wouldn't you want the last experiance in the military to be one that makes you want to tell everyone how great it is, instead of how you were screwed over? It's like pregnancy, it's hell (no matter how you see it you still get huge, and have to deal with the aftermath even in the best pregnancy), but when you see your baby you forget it all, and plan the next one :banghead:


........ I use to be so "red", now feel like I'm going purple straight to blue...