Harlesburg
05-01-2007, 03:28
WASHINGTON, Dec. 28 — The Bush administration is considering an increase in troop levels in Iraq of 17,000 to 20,000, which would be accomplished in part by delaying the departure of two Marine regiments now deployed in Anbar Province, Pentagon officials said Thursday.
Skip to next paragraph
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage »
Enlarge This Image
Tim Sloan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Press vehicles entering President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., were met by demonstrators opposing the war in Iraq.
The option was among those discussed in Crawford, Tex., on Thursday as President Bush met there with his national security team, and it has emerged as a likely course as he considers a strategy shift in Iraq, the officials said.
Most of the additional troops would probably be employed in and around Baghdad, the officials said.
With the continuing high levels of violence there, senior officials increasingly say additional American forces will be needed as soon as possible to clear neighborhoods and to conduct other combat operations to regain control of the capital, rather than primarily to train Iraqi forces.
“The mission that most people are settling on has to do with using them in a security role to quell violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area,” said a senior Pentagon official involved in the planning.
Any plan to add to American forces in Baghdad would have to be negotiated with the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has expressed interest in using Iraqi forces, not American ones, to assert more control over the capital.
The idea of extending the deployments of two Marine units has emerged in part because most of the marines in Iraq are on seven-month rotations and keeping them there longer is considered more palatable than holding over Army brigades, which are already serving tours of a year or longer, one official said.
Additional troops would come from sending into Iraq a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division headed for the region next month and possibly by speeding up the deployment of several Army brigades now scheduled to go to Iraq by next spring.
But officials said a brigade of the First Armored Division now in Anbar Province would probably go home as planned in January, because the unit had already been kept in Iraq more than 40 days beyond its scheduled tour.
Other options remain under consideration, the officials said, noting that a decision to speed up deployment schedules would put more strain on Army and Marine equipment and personnel. But other options, like mobilizing reserve units, would take months, officials said.
After meeting with his top military and diplomatic advisers at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush said his administration was making “good progress” in fashioning a revised Iraq strategy. But he said he intended to consult with Congress when it convenes next week before presenting his plan to the nation.
“I fully understand it’s important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission,” Mr. Bush said, speaking to reporters after a three-hour meeting. “It’s important for the American people to understand success in Iraq is vital for our own security.”
The meeting, according to a senior administration official, focused on the security, economic and political situation in Iraq. But the bulk of the discussions focused on the security issue and the option of sending more American troops to Baghdad, the official said.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emerged from the meeting with the president. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his top deputy, J. D. Crouch, also attended the meeting and joined the others for a working lunch at the ranch.
The White House initially intended to announce a new Iraq policy before Christmas but delayed those plans so the president could consider a range of diverging views inside his administration. For weeks his advisers have been locked in internal debates about how to proceed, but it is an open question whether the meeting on Thursday brought clarity to the discussions.
“I’ve got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan,” said Mr. Bush, who did not elaborate or take questions from reporters.
Mr. Bush said he had received a briefing from Mr. Gates, his new defense secretary, and General Pace, who recently returned from Iraq. White House aides said the president did not want to offer his new plan for Iraq before Mr. Gates had an opportunity to study conditions on the ground in Iraq.
“It’s an important part of coming to closure on a way forward in Iraq that will help us achieve our objective,” Mr. Bush said, “which is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”
How additional American troops would be employed in Baghdad remains a central point of discussion among Mr. Bush’s top advisers and top ground commanders in Iraq, officials said. But two officials said there was growing agreement that most would not be attached to American teams training Iraqi Army and police units, because doing so would not necessarily yield the quick improvements in security the White House wants.
But it is also unclear to what extent the additional forces would be employed to curb the power of militias associated with Shiite groups that form a key constituency for Mr. Maliki.
The two units whose stay could be extended are the Marines’ Fifth and Seventh Regiment combat teams in Anbar Province, which are scheduled to begin leaving Iraq in February when two replacement regiments are due to arrive, officials said.
It is unclear which Army brigades could be sent early. A 3,500-soldier brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is scheduled to arrive in Iraq in mid-January, followed in subsequent months by units from the First Infantry Division, at Fort Riley, Kan., and the Second Infantry Division, at Fort Lewis, Wash.
The Third Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Benning, Ga., is scheduled to go to Iraq in the spring, according to a spokesman, Kevin Larson, who said he had not heard any discussion of accelerating that timetable. But he said, “We’re ready to answer whatever call may come up.”
How long beyond February the Marine units would remain is unclear, but officials emphasized that the goal was a temporary increase in the American presence. It is also unclear whether a decision to speed up the deployment of two Army brigades would mean that other units scheduled to be deployed would go to Iraq earlier than planned later next year. Currently there are about 134,000 American troops in Iraq.
David S. Cloud reported from Washington, and Jeff Zeleny from Crawford, Tex.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/world/middleeast/29prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The weird thing is that it was only reported on the news last night over here.
I don't know if it was on TV on the 28th or 29th, but the television article gave the impression it was breaking news.
Earlier today i found an article by a San Jose paper saying the idea had been given up on or at least altered, in ever read it as i was going to do it later (now).
Perhaps that was a cover story to district from the assault that happened earlier today?
The thing that really got me interested was the name of the proposed operation i can't remember it nor find it, it seemed delusional, weak AKA crap like Shock and Awe.
Good names of the past, Typhoon, Supercharge, Supercharge II, Barbarosa.
Why can't American Military planners come up with exciting names for offensives?
Who looks more capable of directing a war?
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/28/world/600_prexy_1.jpg
http://usmbooks.com/images/HOFFMANN/WESTEN/HHWesten2.jpg
If Bush tried to pull that look off, he'd look like this.
http://www.irelandsown.net/bush-nazi.jpg
A puppet of mine recieved this Issue
Guns or Butter? (http://www.nationstates.net/60234/page=show_dilemma/dilemma=202)
After years of costly military build-up, the military now has a state of readiness capable of responding to all threats, both foreign and domestic. There is extensive debate among government officials, the military, and the average citizen over what, if anything, should be done with this powerful asset.
The Debate
"No one even thinks to look at us funny now," says Field Marshall Lionel Mandrake as he taps a swagger stick against his hip. "So think about how they'd act when the military is in proper charge of the country? We'd say jump, and they'd jump, by jingo. Oh, and if you don't agree with me, consider this a coup."
"There's no point in having a military this size when our closest adversary has a water pistol strapped to a scooter and calls it an armoured brigade," says noted economist Lars Hendrikson. "Besides, the military's been getting uppity with all its funding anyway. Slash its budget, sell off its surplus, and put the money into tax relief and... of course... maintaining all those contractors. Sure, they won't make tanks anymore but they can sure make plenty of commemorative plates with all that money!"
"The military is too powerful!" cries famous peacenik Elvis Gandhi, smelling of petrol and holding a Zippo in one hand. "All those tanks and bombs threaten us and the environment - we're number one, and someone's gonna try and take us down because of it! The people are tired of eating grass soup so the army can get another stealth ICBM launching flamethrower tank. Cut military funding and rebuild our schools, hospitals, welfare, and environment... or else!" Upon which he flips open the lid of the lighter threateningly.
"Everyone's got it all wrong," says Samuel McAlpin, leader of the Harlsburg Libertarian Party. "We need the military now to support our economy but we can't let it get out of control. I say we we privatise it and divvy it up between several corporations, and make it self funding... it sounds radical but taxes will drop, the people will be happy, and we get to keep our military strength to show Johnny Foreigner what's what! Everyone wins! As long it's in the corporations' best interests to protect the country though, I suppose..."
I found it fascinating, i don't recall ever recieving it before.
Anyways.
What are your thoughts on more U.S. troops in Iraq?
Do you know the name of the proposed Operation?
Skip to next paragraph
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage »
Enlarge This Image
Tim Sloan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Press vehicles entering President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., were met by demonstrators opposing the war in Iraq.
The option was among those discussed in Crawford, Tex., on Thursday as President Bush met there with his national security team, and it has emerged as a likely course as he considers a strategy shift in Iraq, the officials said.
Most of the additional troops would probably be employed in and around Baghdad, the officials said.
With the continuing high levels of violence there, senior officials increasingly say additional American forces will be needed as soon as possible to clear neighborhoods and to conduct other combat operations to regain control of the capital, rather than primarily to train Iraqi forces.
“The mission that most people are settling on has to do with using them in a security role to quell violence in Baghdad and the surrounding area,” said a senior Pentagon official involved in the planning.
Any plan to add to American forces in Baghdad would have to be negotiated with the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has expressed interest in using Iraqi forces, not American ones, to assert more control over the capital.
The idea of extending the deployments of two Marine units has emerged in part because most of the marines in Iraq are on seven-month rotations and keeping them there longer is considered more palatable than holding over Army brigades, which are already serving tours of a year or longer, one official said.
Additional troops would come from sending into Iraq a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division headed for the region next month and possibly by speeding up the deployment of several Army brigades now scheduled to go to Iraq by next spring.
But officials said a brigade of the First Armored Division now in Anbar Province would probably go home as planned in January, because the unit had already been kept in Iraq more than 40 days beyond its scheduled tour.
Other options remain under consideration, the officials said, noting that a decision to speed up deployment schedules would put more strain on Army and Marine equipment and personnel. But other options, like mobilizing reserve units, would take months, officials said.
After meeting with his top military and diplomatic advisers at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush said his administration was making “good progress” in fashioning a revised Iraq strategy. But he said he intended to consult with Congress when it convenes next week before presenting his plan to the nation.
“I fully understand it’s important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission,” Mr. Bush said, speaking to reporters after a three-hour meeting. “It’s important for the American people to understand success in Iraq is vital for our own security.”
The meeting, according to a senior administration official, focused on the security, economic and political situation in Iraq. But the bulk of the discussions focused on the security issue and the option of sending more American troops to Baghdad, the official said.
Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emerged from the meeting with the president. The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his top deputy, J. D. Crouch, also attended the meeting and joined the others for a working lunch at the ranch.
The White House initially intended to announce a new Iraq policy before Christmas but delayed those plans so the president could consider a range of diverging views inside his administration. For weeks his advisers have been locked in internal debates about how to proceed, but it is an open question whether the meeting on Thursday brought clarity to the discussions.
“I’ve got more consultation to do until I talk to the country about the plan,” said Mr. Bush, who did not elaborate or take questions from reporters.
Mr. Bush said he had received a briefing from Mr. Gates, his new defense secretary, and General Pace, who recently returned from Iraq. White House aides said the president did not want to offer his new plan for Iraq before Mr. Gates had an opportunity to study conditions on the ground in Iraq.
“It’s an important part of coming to closure on a way forward in Iraq that will help us achieve our objective,” Mr. Bush said, “which is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.”
How additional American troops would be employed in Baghdad remains a central point of discussion among Mr. Bush’s top advisers and top ground commanders in Iraq, officials said. But two officials said there was growing agreement that most would not be attached to American teams training Iraqi Army and police units, because doing so would not necessarily yield the quick improvements in security the White House wants.
But it is also unclear to what extent the additional forces would be employed to curb the power of militias associated with Shiite groups that form a key constituency for Mr. Maliki.
The two units whose stay could be extended are the Marines’ Fifth and Seventh Regiment combat teams in Anbar Province, which are scheduled to begin leaving Iraq in February when two replacement regiments are due to arrive, officials said.
It is unclear which Army brigades could be sent early. A 3,500-soldier brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., is scheduled to arrive in Iraq in mid-January, followed in subsequent months by units from the First Infantry Division, at Fort Riley, Kan., and the Second Infantry Division, at Fort Lewis, Wash.
The Third Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, based at Fort Benning, Ga., is scheduled to go to Iraq in the spring, according to a spokesman, Kevin Larson, who said he had not heard any discussion of accelerating that timetable. But he said, “We’re ready to answer whatever call may come up.”
How long beyond February the Marine units would remain is unclear, but officials emphasized that the goal was a temporary increase in the American presence. It is also unclear whether a decision to speed up the deployment of two Army brigades would mean that other units scheduled to be deployed would go to Iraq earlier than planned later next year. Currently there are about 134,000 American troops in Iraq.
David S. Cloud reported from Washington, and Jeff Zeleny from Crawford, Tex.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/29/world/middleeast/29prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The weird thing is that it was only reported on the news last night over here.
I don't know if it was on TV on the 28th or 29th, but the television article gave the impression it was breaking news.
Earlier today i found an article by a San Jose paper saying the idea had been given up on or at least altered, in ever read it as i was going to do it later (now).
Perhaps that was a cover story to district from the assault that happened earlier today?
The thing that really got me interested was the name of the proposed operation i can't remember it nor find it, it seemed delusional, weak AKA crap like Shock and Awe.
Good names of the past, Typhoon, Supercharge, Supercharge II, Barbarosa.
Why can't American Military planners come up with exciting names for offensives?
Who looks more capable of directing a war?
http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/28/world/600_prexy_1.jpg
http://usmbooks.com/images/HOFFMANN/WESTEN/HHWesten2.jpg
If Bush tried to pull that look off, he'd look like this.
http://www.irelandsown.net/bush-nazi.jpg
A puppet of mine recieved this Issue
Guns or Butter? (http://www.nationstates.net/60234/page=show_dilemma/dilemma=202)
After years of costly military build-up, the military now has a state of readiness capable of responding to all threats, both foreign and domestic. There is extensive debate among government officials, the military, and the average citizen over what, if anything, should be done with this powerful asset.
The Debate
"No one even thinks to look at us funny now," says Field Marshall Lionel Mandrake as he taps a swagger stick against his hip. "So think about how they'd act when the military is in proper charge of the country? We'd say jump, and they'd jump, by jingo. Oh, and if you don't agree with me, consider this a coup."
"There's no point in having a military this size when our closest adversary has a water pistol strapped to a scooter and calls it an armoured brigade," says noted economist Lars Hendrikson. "Besides, the military's been getting uppity with all its funding anyway. Slash its budget, sell off its surplus, and put the money into tax relief and... of course... maintaining all those contractors. Sure, they won't make tanks anymore but they can sure make plenty of commemorative plates with all that money!"
"The military is too powerful!" cries famous peacenik Elvis Gandhi, smelling of petrol and holding a Zippo in one hand. "All those tanks and bombs threaten us and the environment - we're number one, and someone's gonna try and take us down because of it! The people are tired of eating grass soup so the army can get another stealth ICBM launching flamethrower tank. Cut military funding and rebuild our schools, hospitals, welfare, and environment... or else!" Upon which he flips open the lid of the lighter threateningly.
"Everyone's got it all wrong," says Samuel McAlpin, leader of the Harlsburg Libertarian Party. "We need the military now to support our economy but we can't let it get out of control. I say we we privatise it and divvy it up between several corporations, and make it self funding... it sounds radical but taxes will drop, the people will be happy, and we get to keep our military strength to show Johnny Foreigner what's what! Everyone wins! As long it's in the corporations' best interests to protect the country though, I suppose..."
I found it fascinating, i don't recall ever recieving it before.
Anyways.
What are your thoughts on more U.S. troops in Iraq?
Do you know the name of the proposed Operation?