Registered: Aug 2000
Location: b0ulder
Posts: 5130

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; 2:00 PM

The Pentagon plans to boost troop levels in Iraq to about 150,000 for the elections scheduled for late January, a Defense Department official said today.

Currently about 138,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq.

The long-expected escalation will be achieved by extending the year-long tours of some Army and Marine units by a month or two or even three, and also by sending about 1,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division on short tour, the official said.

The units whose tours are being extended in Iraq are from the 25th Infantry Division, the 1st Cavalry Division, and the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. In addition, logistics troops from the 13th Corps Support Command who are operating in Kuwait also will have their tours extended.

The extensions mean that some soldiers will serve in Iraq as long as 15 months. In the past, such extensions have caused some anguish among family members who have been counting down the days until the return of their deployed soldiers. But as extensions have become more common in Iraq, spouses have come to anticipate such moves.

Some Pentagon officials are explaining the increase in troops as a temporary move. But an Army official said that planning is underway to maintain the higher level if commanders deem it necessary. So, he said, after the election, some units scheduled to deploy to Iraq might be sent sooner than scheduled. For example, he said, the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which returned from a year in Iraq in March 2004, was scheduled to return in March or April 2005, but now has been told to expect to go in February, just after the election is held.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4-2004Dec1.html

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444

In related news, November was the bloodiest month so far in terms of casualties.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15040

What sort of casualities, Paint?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: b0ulder
Posts: 5130

War casualties, skalie.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
What sort of casualities, Paint?

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

I'm just amazed at how far warfare has evolved to us speaking of this many - what, 134? - casualties as the bloodiest so far. There were times that we'd lose that on a march, fer Pete's sake. Not only could we have expected much worse, they've been predicting an increase in violence as the election approaches. And they also had a major offensive last month. So why is an increase in casualties something you'd post as if it is news independent of all that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

I also think it is reasonable to expect that some military personnel will serve for the duration of any particular conflict, as they customarily have in many of this nation's wars. I can understand the discomfort some folks have calling this a war when the enemy is seemingly so nebulous that it becomes like the war of drugs or the war on poverty, but that doesn't alter the fact that militarily we are being pretty proactive in defense of our interests to the extent that we are regularly putting our troops in harm's way and being pretty open about it publicly. That's enough for me to consider us bellicose enough to call it a war. I certainly hope it is, and I hope we win it as well. Otherwise I wouldn't support it. Fighting losing wars is a bad business historically, unless yer Greek. I hope we continue to pursue the same course; I just hope we do it with a bit more intelligence and, well, panache.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
Not only could we have expected much worse....

---

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

you may not have, or you may have been holdin Bush accountable to his optimism, which is perhaps fair but fruitless, but I certainly wasn't, and I don't expect any other rhetoric from the CoC, to be honest. I think it's a non-issue, and I approve of an escalation of force to safeguard elections as best we can.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26444

I do as well, to be honest. As much as I bemoan the entirity of the war, since we're there, we oughta do as right as we can by Iraq, in my mind, which requires things like upping troop levels for the elections, retaking Falluja, shit like that. I supported it when Kerry was talking about it, it's still a good idea now that Bush is - at this point we really can't do much less.

My point (insomuch as I had one) was indeed about the Bush administration's blind optimism. If I thought it was just in rhetoric, I would be much less worried. The short term goals I don't mind so much.

As far as me not expecting it, one of the reasons I was against the war was that I didn't feel the administration was taking seriously any of the post-invasion planning or winning the peace type of stuff. Indeed, none of this was unexpected. Except by, sadly, the people in charge. Do you think the administration had in mind in March 2002 this sort of a November 2004 in Iraq?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

Quite frankly, no, I don't.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
I approve of an escalation of force to safeguard elections as best we can.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15040

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
we are being pretty proactive in defense of our interests to the extent that we are regularly putting our troops in harm's way and being pretty open about it publicly

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35736

I was under the impression that the son of the Congressman in question is in active duty somewhere more dangerous than the Green Zone.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15040

Stateside in the Orange Zone?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 7113

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mugtoe
I'm just amazed at how far warfare has evolved to us speaking of this many - what, 134? - casualties as the bloodiest so far. There were times that we'd lose that on a march, fer Pete's sake.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35736

No one went into WW2 on the jew's behalf so far as I am aware (indeed, the US and the UK, for example, had been turning away jews desperately trying to escape Central Europe for a number of years).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

Indeed. for Britain it was because of treaty obligations to Catholic Poland, not on behalf of a bunch of mangy 4 by 2's

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 7973

Not to mention everybody thought Hitler went nuts because the whole reason he was getting leeway in invadeing Austria, hungary and the like was because he was supposed to be a bulwark against Stalin.
Then he signed the nonagression treaty with him? Then he invaded poland? Waht ze fuck Hitelar, are yu do-ink?!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35736

The US had the embarassment of Hitler declaring war on them to respond to, of course, and before the cheese course, to boot, thus displaying a total lack of breeding.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15040

We need to start to collecting names for a "who's going to get dafted first?*" poll.

*or run away to Canada for the likes of Caffeine.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

quote:

---

Originally posted by philjit
I presume you mean to safeguard the result?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
Proactive in defense, yep, that just about sums up Iraq.

Whose interests and whose troops? One congressman has a child over there somewhere, I'm guessing in the green zone.

..........pretty "open publicly" the way there is such an uproar if the media publishes a photo of a Star Spangled Banner draped coffin.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 18251

course it could be that I was bein unclear and you took an easy score.