Do any of you who support it, know where the 20,000 troops are coming from?

[Osborn F Enready]

So, do any of you know where the 20,000 troops that Bush is talking about are coming from, for the Iraq surge?

AGAIN, over-extending stays in Iraq for those who are there.
Cutting short leave and out-of-theater time.

Where else?

Do you know?

[bishop]

not that this entirely answers the question, but it's a start...


Carlsbad Current-Argus - War plan puts new troops in Iraq by month's end

Under Bush's plan, thousands of troops will be alerted that they may be needed in Iraq - including units already there whose service would be extended, or others that could be sent earlier than initially scheduled, said one official. 82nd Airbone unit first Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is now in Kuwait and poised to head quickly into the country, the defense official said. The brigade, numbering about 3,500 troops, is based at Fort Bragg, N.C. Other units, including Marine brigades in western Iraq, could be asked to extend their deployment. And the military buildup is also likely to include moving the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis into the Persian Gulf region, as a show of force and a warning to Iran and Syria. There are already about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. According to the defense official, Bush also will discuss the need to address how often the Pentagon can tap the National Guard and reserves, although he may provide few details. And Bush will again endorse the need to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps.

[Praxius]

^ Yeah, similar numbers as I got up here.

One word I've heard kicking around:

Draft...... (Which of course would mean the end to Bush I imagine.)

[Zeebadee]

I don't support the plan, and I don't think it will work, but as I have said in another thread, I do support having the military, which includes the CIC, make the decision to implement the plan, not some vote-pandering members of congress.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't support the plan, and I don't think it will work, but as I have said in another thread, I do support having the military, which includes the CIC, make the decision to implement the plan, not some vote-pandering members of congress.

That is congress' role. did you mean actual war planning? than that would be the militarys role

[bishop]

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't support the plan, and I don't think it will work, but as I have said in another thread, I do support having the military, which includes the CIC, make the decision to implement the plan, not some vote-pandering members of congress.

yeah... the military isn't making any plans here - bush is. so, you're basically saying that you support bush's plan and masquerading around as if it's the military's plan. seems to me that the military doesn't think that this is a good plan. only problem is that all the military chieftans who've disappoved have been removed from the picture.

[Jack]

A friend of mine is re-enlisting to take advantage of the increased bonuses for doing so, even though he isn't at risk of being sent to Iraq. He does what I used to, except he does it for the Navy. He is, though, being transferred to Virginia. I'm not sure if he'll be counted among the 20000 or not.
I'm still not clear on what Bush plans on doing with the increased number of troops. Has any sort of proper plan been articulated? Is there a real purpose to adding more bodies, or does he think that just throwing more soldiers at the problem will somehow solve it?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Isherwood Has any sort of proper plan been articulated? Is there a real purpose to adding more bodies, or does he think that just throwing more soldiers at the problem will somehow solve it?

I just read that officials in the US government who oppose the idea, are claiming that in order to meet the end goals that Bush was talking about, you guys would need an additional 100,000 troops, not just 20,000.

Let me see where I dug that from:

Surveys suggest 60 per cent of Americans are opposed to sending more soldiers and many analysts view it as pointless and irrational, too little too late. A proper escalation plan for Baghdad, with its population of more than six million, would call for roughly 100,000 troops, said analyst Justin Logan at the "market-liberal" Cato Institute. "On its own terms, the military element of President Bush’s strategy is destined for failure."

Source:
The ChronicleHerald.ca

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: bishop yeah... the military isn't making any plans here - bush is. so, you're basically saying that you support bush's plan and masquerading around as if it's the military's plan. seems to me that the military doesn't think that this is a good plan. only problem is that all the military chieftans who've disappoved have been removed from the picture.

No, I'm saying that the military, which includes the CIC should be in charge of planning military operations, not a bunch of bought-and-paid-for congressmen.

And obviously, there are quite a few military "chieftans" that think this plan might work. In any case, if the democrats shut this move off, the administration is going to have the perfect answer to any charges that the U.S. lost this war. They'll just point to congress and say, "We had the winning answer right there but congress wouldn't let us win".

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Praxius I just read that officials in the US government who oppose the idea, are claiming that in order to meet the end goals that Bush was talking about, you guys would need an additional 100,000 troops, not just 20,000. Let me see where I dug that from: Source: The ChronicleHerald.ca

cato isnt a us government official or anything. but there right

[Fonceai]

I seriously doubt a draft of any kind.

There are roughly 2.7 million Americans in Active Duty and the Reserve Components (Guard, Reserves).

At any base, they try to do 3 - 6 month deployment rotations.

If they reduce those crews to minimal, they can easily get 20,000 more troops overseas.

The number is not as much of a scare as it would initially appear.

[bishop]

Quote by: Zeebadee No, I'm saying that the military, which includes the CIC should be in charge of planning military operations, not a bunch of bought-and-paid-for congressmen. And obviously, there are quite a few military "chieftans" that think this plan might work. In any case, if the democrats shut this move off, the administration is going to have the perfect answer to any charges that the U.S. lost this war. They'll just point to congress and say, "We had the winning answer right there but congress wouldn't let us win".

if bush were to hypothetically ask the military to draw up a withdrawal plan - they would. the military curiously never drafted up substantive plans for the post-invasion phase of the war. why? could it be because the political leadership never asked them to?

the military may plan individual missions, but the politicians plan all of the big stuff - including this "new" move by bush to increase troop numbers. (and this is besides the fact that even the military has stated that we can't win this debacle through military force alone.)

hypothetically, if worrying about republicans finger-pointing at democrats who successfully blocked this surge is what you're really concerned about - i'd say that's small potatoes.. i don't care what happens to the dems' political future, i just want this surge to fail to occur. none of the previous surges did ANYTHING to improve the situation, more of the same will just result in predictable outcomes...

you also mention the "bought and paid for" congress.... tell me, who's really opposed to this surge? is it their corporate backers, or the individual americans who voted them into office? the "bought and paid for" line certainly seems applicable when talking about, for example, healthcare legislation - but it is hardly applicable in this case. the american public totally opposes bush's idiotic surge and the dems are simply doing their job and representing their constituents, using their constitutional power of the purse... at least, that's what i sincerely hope they'll do.