U.S. to extend troops' Iraq tours to 15 months

[ChumpDumper]

WASHINGTON - Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in
Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

It was the latest move by the Pentagon to cope with the strains of fighting two wars simultaneously and maintaining a higher troop level in Iraq as part of
President Bush's revised strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.

"This policy is a difficult but necessary interim step," Gates told a Pentagon news conference, adding that the goal is to eventually return to 12 months as the standard length of tour in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the new policy does not affect the other main components of the U.S. ground force in Iraq: the Marines, whose standard tour is seven months, or the Army National Guard or Army Reserve, which will continue to serve 12-month tours.

Gates acknowledged that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making life difficult for many in the military.

"Our forces are stretched, there's no question about that," Gates said.

He said the new policy also seeks to ensure that all active-duty Army units get at least 12 months at home between deployments. He said it would allow the Pentagon to maintain the current level of troops in Iraq for another year, although he added that there has been no decision on future troop levels.

Without changing the standard tour length to 15 months, the Army would have been forced to send five brigades to Iraq before they completed 12 months at home, Gates said.

Some units' tours in Iraq had already been extended beyond 12 months by varying amounts. The new policy will make deployments more equitable and more predictable for soldiers and for their families, Gates said.

"I think it is fair to all soldiers that all share the burden equally," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_troops

[Trainwreck2100]

well that's not nice

[whottt]

Shit...Bush should do what the Democrats did...draft.


Tokyo...someday you might attempt posting something other than propaganda. You might even gain an ounce of credibility.

[whottt]

SO Chump...if you are in favor of us staying in Iraq...how come you find yourself supporting the party that wants to cut funding and pull us out?


Oh never mind...you're a lib, a logical stance isn't necessary because of yoru party affiliation...I forgot you have carte blanche to...bitch about every thing.

[whottt]

Oh well...at least the foum has another leftwing propagandist...because we sure did need more of them.

[whottt]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (3 members and 0 guests)
whottt, ggoose25, ChumpDumper


For some reason, I feel a clever bumpersticker or political cartoon coming up....perhaps even a nifty photo.

[ChumpDumper]

SO Chump...if you are in favor of us staying in Iraq...how come you find yourself supporting the party that wants to cut funding and pull us out?I don't find myself supporting them much at all. Democrats have as little strategic thinking as Bush does -- or any other leader apparently does. Because of Bush's fuckups, we are left with trying to figure out which shitty course of action is slightly less shitty than the rest. Sure, McCain's idea of putting even more troops in Iraq makes the most sense militarily, but the opportunity to pull that off with the support of the American people has passed. Again, Bush fucked that up even in the event he had sound reasoning for invading and occupying Iraq. Now Americans just want out, and they don't even care that the job isn't done and the real dangerous actors that Bush hasn't and now can't touch are free to come up with their next plan to attack the US.
Oh never mind...you're a lib, a logical stance isn't necessary because of yoru party affiliation.I am not a memeber of any party.
I forgot you have carte blanche to...bitch about every thing.I certainly do, since I am a citizen of the United States. No doubt you would prefer to take my free speech rights away from me, but your wishful thinking means nothing.

[boutons_]

Just the other day, some General said they had plenty of troops, with 2 milllion in uniform. Seems like that General isn't very good at numbers.

And then why are the reserves being called up and extended?

dickhead knows Iraq is lost, and he knows he is 100% responsible for starting the war and losing it.

dickhead is cynically pushing the withdrawal past 20 Jan 2009, costing 1000s of US military dead and maimed and traumatized to save his own reputtation, so he and the Repugs can slime whomever does order the withdrawal in the next administration.

There's plenty of $$$ to finance the bullshit until July, according to an independent, non-partisan govt accounting.

================

Speaking of the Army's $$$ :

Congressional Report: Gross Mismanagement of Iraq Funds

By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 11 April 2007

A damning report issued last month by the nonpartisan research arm of Congress says the Department of Defense continues to overstate its financial needs, by tens of billions of dollars, to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The agency also casts serious doubt on President Bush's statements that money to fund the war will dry up by the end of the month if his budgetary demands are not immediately met.

The 45-page report, "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11," prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service, warned lawmakers that before they release additional funds to the Pentagon for the Iraq war, they should first demand that Defense Department officials provide an accurate accounting of how the money is being spent.

Since 2001, the Pentagon has grossly mismanaged the $510 billion spent thus far on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; has used money earmarked for equipment upgrades to finance fighting on the battlefield, and has refused to provide Congress with a transparent accounting of the money it has spent and intends to spend, according to the CRS report.

"Congressional leaders have promised more scrutiny of the administration's requests for a [fiscal year] 2007 supplemental and [fiscal year] 2008 war costs. The [fiscal year] 2007 supplemental requests an additional $93.4 billion for war costs, which would bring DOD's annual war cost to $163.4 billion, the highest to date and 40 percent more than in 2006. If enacted, cumulative war costs would reach $607 billion," the report says. "Thus far, Congress is receiving fairly detailed quarterly reporting on various metrics for success in Iraq ... but cost is not one of those metrics."

Exacerbating the issue is the fact that the Department of Defense "has periodically revised the figures shown for each operation in previous years, suggesting questions about the validity of its figures," the report says, adding that some of the department's supplemental requests for 2007 include "$2 billion from some unknown source."

Last July, David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, testified before the Congressional Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Affairs. He told lawmakers that a lack of actual costs, supporting documentation and routine reporting problems by the Pentagon with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "make it difficult to reliably know what the war is costing, to determine how appropriated funds are being spent, and to use historical data to predict future trends."

But the Defense Department "has not been willing to provide Congress" with the data it uses to predict its operating costs on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, Congressional researchers have recommended in their report that Congress ask the Department of Defense Inspector General to audit the Pentagon in order to resolve these various gaps and discrepancies in cost data related to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Until now, President Bush has enjoyed the luxury of having a Republican majority in Congress issue the Defense Department a blank check to use as the administration saw fit in Iraq without needed oversight from lawmakers, the report said.

Now, with a Democratic majority presiding over both Houses, Congressional researchers have advised lawmakers that they should be cautious not to give in to urgent budgetary demands from the administration that may very well be based on financial chicanery, the report added.

The report recommends that Congress should consider taking drastic measures to rein in the administration's out-of-control spending and draw on history for guidance.

"While only a handful of provisions have been enacted, Congressional consideration of these various limiting provisions placed pressure on the administration and thus influenced the course of events," the report says. "For example, one provision that prohibited the introduction of US ground troops into Cambodia was enacted in 1970 after US forces had invaded and then been withdrawn from Cambodia; that provision was intended to prevent the re-introduction of troops. Although President Nixon did not reintroduce US troops, the United States continued to bomb Cambodia for the next three years.

"Two well-known proposals - the McGovern-Hatfield amendment and the Cooper-Church amendments - were also part of this jockeying between the administration and Congress. The first prohibited expenditure of previously appropriated funds after a specified date "in or over Indochina," except for the purpose of withdrawing troops or for protection of US troops during the withdrawal, while the second prohibited the expenditure of any funds after July 1, 1970 to retain troops in Cambodia "unless specifically authorized by law hereafter. Overall, funding restrictions have generally proven more effective than the War Powers Act, which has been challenged by the executive branch on constitutional grounds," the report says.

Furthermore, before agreeing to provide the Pentagon with additional funds for Iraq, lawmakers should insist that the Defense Department provide a detailed financial report on the reasons its costs for funding the war have more than doubled from last year.

"Although DOD has testified frequently and submitted various reports on Iraq and the global war on terror, information and explanations of changes in the cost of OIF [Operation Iraqi Freedom] and OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] have been limited, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent," the CRS report dated March 15 says. "Until the [fiscal year] 2007 supplemental and [fiscal year] 2008 war costs request, DOD has submitted very little information to buttress its requests. Both the Iraq Study Group and [the Congressional Budget Office] have criticized DOD's presentation of cost data for Iraq and the global war on terror." The Iraq Study Group called the administration's requests "confusing, making it difficult for both the general public and members of Congress to know something that 'should be a simple question,' such as the amount requested for Iraq operations."

Documents turned over to Congress by the Defense Department to justify its financial needs in Iraq and the so-called global war on terror "have been sparse," and government agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, "have all found various discrepancies in DOD figures - including understating budget authority and obligations, mismatches between and obligations data, double-counting of some obligations, questionable figures, and a lack of information about basic factors that affect costs such as troop strength ..."

[b] "For example, DOD provided five pages to justify $33 billion in operation and maintenance spending, about half of the [fiscal year] 2006 supplemental request. Because few details are included, [the Congressional Budget Office] notes the difficulty in determining the basis of DOD requests and estimating alternatives," the report states. "And because appropriations for war are mixed with DOD's baseline budget, information about 'what has actually been spent,' or outlays, is not available. That information is important for estimating the cost of alternate future scenarios and also for showing the effect of war costs on the federal deficit."

The Pentagon claims the skyrocketing costs for funding the war are due to investments in "force protection" and "situational awareness, which amounts to radios, sensors, multi-purpose vehicles, as well as equipment for new Marine and Army units sent into battle, extensive upgrading of equipment, and the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the Congressional Research Service report says "these reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the scope of increases thus far or to sort out whether the new requests are legitimately war-related emergencies, rather than being part of ongoing modernization or transformation programs."

The Department of Defense "has provided little rationale or explanation for its requirements or change in requirements for replacing war-worn equipment or extensive upgrades. In some cases, requirements do not appear to be strictly related to war needs," the report says.

Congressional researchers have warned Congress that the Defense Department's $1.9 billion supplemental request for "military construction" in its 2007 budget is twice as much as what it received in 2005 and may be controversial if approved by lawmakers, because it would indicate an "intent to set up permanent bases in Iraq and ... not clearly an emergency. "

Finally, the report says that despite the rhetoric disseminated by the White House, the Pentagon has enough money to continue to fund the war until June or July, while Congress and President Bush try and come to an agreement about legislation lawmakers passed last month in which money to fund the Iraq war going forward is contingent upon a clear-cut exit date from the region. Bush has said he will veto the measure, and has stated publicly that additional funding for the war has now reached the point of urgency, a claim Congressional researchers say is untrue.

"The Army is currently claiming that the supplemental needs to be enacted by the end of April to avoid such problems. In this year's bridge fund, however, Congress provided $28.4 billion to meet the Army's operational needs, some $7 billion higher than last year's bridge fund. The additional funds could reduce the pressure to pass the supplemental quickly. Using DOD data, CRS estimates that the Army could cover its operational costs till about June or July 2007 by using war funds in the bridge, temporarily transferring procurement funds to operations, and tapping monies in its baseline budget that would not be needed until the end of the year," the report says.

======================

In addition the blank checks written without documentation for DoD (which already burns through $400B every year), we know 10s of US $Bs have been wasted on aborted re-construction projects, corrupton, super-high-priced Blackwater-type mercenaries and privatized para-militaries because the Army/Marines were too small in the first place, etc, etc, etc.

As with the entire 6+ years of the dubya/dickhead administration, there is not one fucking thing that has gone right in Iraq.

[clambake]

I think Bush instituting the draft would be a great idea.

Finally, we could storm the white house like the bastille, and rid this country of those tenants for good.

[ggoose25]

bush is a puss. if he really believed in freedom in the ME he would start a draft.

[boutons_]

The bogus Repug/neo-cunt war in Iraq was meant to be totally painless, slamdunk easy, they knew the first Gulf are and 12 years sanctions has rendered Saddam's military totally impotent, then those $Bs of oil profits would start pouring into US/UK oilcos.

Almost nobody killed or injured, keeping cutting taxes for the rich and corps, nobody asked to make any sacrifices, and above all, no military draft or lottery.

Just another ideological PNAC/AEI/neo-cunt/REpug fuckup, totally out touch with practical reality.

[whottt]

No doubt you would prefer to take my free speech rights away from me, but your wishful thinking means nothing.

No...I just think it's funny that all you do is complain...no solutions, just complaints. Modern Democrat.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for finding the least shitty solution to Iraq, and I'm pleased guys like Petraeus and Mattis are in critical positions to make an overall difference in the counterinsurgency, since this was one of my major compaints. Turns out alot of folks who matter agreed with me.

One of my solutions was to get rid of Rumsfeld since he was the cause of many of the problems in Iraq. Guess what happened.

What was your solution again? Start a third war two weeks ago?

Modern dumbass.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No...I just think it's funny that all you do is complain...no solutions, just complaints. Modern Democrat.


What's funny is that your still staying the course you dead ender.

[boutons_]

whott's boys dubya and dickhead CREATE the horrible godawful disasters, and he trash-talks the war/Repug dissidents because he SAYS they don't come up with solutions that dubya and dickhead can't find?

The solution to Iraq is get out, it's OVER, the Iraqi govt is impotent, still-born, the Iraqis want a civil war and the US can't stop it. The US must withdraw as carefully but as quickly as possible and let the Iraqi shit hit the fan. How's that for a solution, Whott-the-fuck?

[Findog]

No...I just think it's funny that all you do is complain...no solutions, just complaints. Modern Democrat.

Support idiotic policies and fight to the last drop of someone else's blood: a typical "Republican." I'm not a Democrat or a liberal, btw: I'm an America-first conservative that supports Ron Paul and other libertarians that believe we should be a Republic, not an empire. I don't care for Kerry, Pelosi, Hillary, or any of the other stupid hacks that pass for the modern Democratic Party. Not that your feeble brain can grasp such a concept: Antiwar = Democrat = Traitor. I hope you enjoy Bush and Rove running the GOP into a ditch, it'll be 30 years before the country trusts you people again to do anything. The hallmark of Bush and his supporters can be summed up as follows: arrogance, stupidity, incompetence and cynicism.

Here's a solution: pull the fuck out of Iraq, then negiotiate with whatever emerges after the civil war. Iraq is not about terrorism and never was -- when we leave, and we will, it's just a matter of when, all foreign fighters will have their throats slit by the natives. Precious resources that could be used to fight terrorism are being wasted in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq certainly does nothing to prevent an attack here -- the terrorists that wish us harm can strike whether we're bogged down in an idiotic counterinsurgency or not. First rule of when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. How's that for a solution, you fucking moron?

The military commanders on the ground in Iraq that know what the fuck they're talking about, unlike you, have stated there is no military solution to what is going on there. So what makes you such an expert that you want to send even more young people to their deaths, huh, General Armchair?

Fucking coward. Do me another favor: Get rid of Finley as your fucking avatar, how dare you disgrace him with your stance.

[whottt]

I print copies of this av to wipe my ass with...that's what I think of FinDog. Although I do admit...Fin wipes a mean ass. :tu


As for the rest of your take...you actually had some good points, to bad I don't give a fuck who you like or who you don't, because I have no fucking clue who youare...or what your obscure political views are.

#1. Because you're a Mav Fan. Which means you must be a stupid fuck, and the one post of yours I've seen did nothing to dissuade that notion.

#2. Because you have some obscure political view that is never going to get elected, and neither is your candidate, so you may as well STFU about it, until you realize that you choose to not matter...

[whottt]

And BTW, I am sick of you guys coming up with excuses to protest this war and giving aid to those who want to politicize this war since the it's the only way they can win.

Douchebags..this isn't Vietnam, there is no two Superpowers surrounding Iraq pumping in endless supplies, there are no jungles...and our military volunteered you idiots.

You do not help them....

If you don't fucking think the entire goal of the insurgency is to hang in there until our anti-wars end this thing...

You a fucking retard.

That's the only Vietnam Flashback that's happening here.

[whottt]

Oh and Finshit...

I lose all respect for anyone that wants to pullout...

Not only do you lack accountability and intelligence, you are completely ignorant as to what type of situation that will create....both in Iraq and for America.



I don't give a fuck how much you hate Bush...idiots, you can't pull out of Iraq after destroying it...unless they ask us to.

And no...some fucking cracpot Mullah is not in charge of making that call.

[Findog]

I don't give a fuck how much you hate Bush...idiots, you can't pull out of Iraq after destroying it...unless they ask us to.



Read the polls dipshit...the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. You don't come into somebody's house and rearrange furniture and start giving the residents chores to do. We were never invited in to begin with.

There are drastic and negative consequences to us leaving Iraq. I never denied that...that is however, the least shitty option available at this point. We are going to be forced to leave at some point, it is better to do that on our terms than theirs.

As for Vietnam, they are two different places in time and space, I didn't make that comparison, you did. But if you want to to compare and contrast, I would rather leave now than watch helicopters scurry out of the Green Zone the way they did in Saigon.

I opposed this war from the beginning because I knew what kind of Pandora's Box would open up as a result. I was right, you were wrong, now deal with your ignorance and your stupidity. Not everybody that opposes this war is some dope-smoking hippy, which is why I disclosed my political affiliations, since your feeble brain can't deal with reality and has to caricature those with whom you disagree.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go down to a recruiting station? Oh yeah, you have tension headaches, or anal warts, or some other cowardly reason for avoiding service.

[Findog]

You know what, I apologize for the personal attacks...ever since my brother was KIA in Iraq, I cannot discuss this issue in a reasonable manner. You are wrong, but that doesn't excuse the ad hominem attacks. I apologize.

[whottt]

You know what, I apologize for the personal attacks...ever since my brother was KIA in Iraq, I cannot discuss this issue in a reasonable manner. You are wrong, but that doesn't excuse the ad hominem attacks. I apologize.

No problem, and don't sweat the ad hominem attacks, this is SpursTalk sfter all.

I'm sorry about your brother, truly I am.


I don't agree with your stance on solving this war, and pulling out is what created the Taliban in Afghanistan. To do that here would create a situation incrementally worse, same mentality, only much more wealthy, and sitting right next to an emerging nuclear power...no way is that a good idea.

And the majority of Iraqis don't want us leaving till the country is secure. The overwhelming majority want us to stay there until the situation is secure...

The overwhelming majority also want a Democracy...not a Theocracy.

Iraqi polling data...

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55


Other than an unrealistic view of their security forces...I think their general opinion makes more sense than those I see presented on this board in their behalf, 50 times a day.

[boutons_]

Hyper-chauvinist Whott now lets Iraqi polls decide US policy, while ignoring polls of USA?

How about the polls of US FUCKING CITIZENS who give dubya 70% disapproval ratings and an overwhelming majority that wants the US out of Iraq?

Whott cherry picks his polls to spread his lies the way dubya/dickhead cherry picked and fabricated intel to get their war-for-oil.

You're a sicko, ideological minority, Whott-the-fuck. Your boy dubya has fucked Iraq, fucked the US military, and fucked the USA security with his bullshit war.

It's way past time to get the fuck out of Iraq. The US military needs prepare to to defend the USA against Iraq after the USA pulls out.

The indigenous and terrorists will outwait and outlast and beat the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, just like they did to the Russians in Afghanistan, and to the Americans in VN.

Whott still supports the worst geo-political disaster, an unwinnable disaster, in US history and the most disastrous, incompetent, corrupt Exec in US history because the Iraqi people say so?

[xrayzebra]

What's funny is that your still staying the course you dead ender.

Whats your solution: Unconditional Surrender?

You act like a really great progressive dimm-o-crap.

[xrayzebra]

whott's boys dubya and dickhead CREATE the horrible godawful disasters, and he trash-talks the war/Repug dissidents because he SAYS they don't come up with solutions that dubya and dickhead can't find?

The solution to Iraq is get out, it's OVER, the Iraqi govt is impotent, still-born, the Iraqis want a civil war and the US can't stop it. The US must withdraw as carefully but as quickly as possible and let the Iraqi shit hit the fan. How's that for a solution, Whott-the-fuck?

And boutons are you going to man the ramparts here in
the US when the terrorist take over Iraq, after we leave,
and they have a completely safe haven to operate, train
and recruit from. Will you be the first to call for armed
intervention to stop all the killing in Iraq. You know like
Biden is doing. Wants us to send troops to Dufur to stop
the blood letting.

More than likely you will want to start a neighborhood patrol
to keep the terrorist out. Except you wouldn't want them
armed, cause they may hurt one of them.