Friday, March 09, 2007

Bush troop surge is getting bigger

Should we be surprised about this story? From ABC News:

WASHINGTON Mar 9, 2007 (AP)— President Bush's troop buildup in Baghdad apparently will be bigger and more costly and perhaps last longer than it seemed when he unveiled the plan in January as the centerpiece of a new Iraq strategy.

U.S. officials say it's too early to tell whether the troop reinforcements will succeed in containing the sectarian and insurgent violence, but it looks as though the Pentagon is preparing for an expanded commitment assuming that by summer there are solid signs that the extra effort is yielding significant results.

The Bush plan called for sending 21,500 extra U.S. combat troops to Iraq mainly to Baghdad with the last of five brigades arriving by June. The estimated price tag was $5.6 billion. Officials have refused to say exactly how long it would last, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates had suggested that it could be over by fall.

In recent days a different picture has emerged.

The total number of troops required for the plan, while still uncertain, is climbing. When Bush announced the boost of 21,500 combat troops, the Pentagon said still others would be required to go with them in support roles. Its initial estimate of 2,400 support troops has doubled and may go higher still.

The cost also is rising. Administration officials conferred with lawmakers this week about an extra $1 billion, on top of the original $5.6 billion. The actual cost depends on how long the troop reinforcement is sustained.

[....]

As of Thursday there were 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. That includes two of the five Army brigades designated for the buildup. A third brigade is scheduled to arrive this month, another in April and the last one in May or June.

In addition, Gates said Wednesday that at least another 2,400 would be needed to support the extra combat forces. And he said Petraeus had added still another requirement about 2,200 more military police to help with an anticipated increase in detainees and for other duties.

Also, it was decided last month that an additional division headquarters 1,000 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., should go in March to split Baghdad command and control duties with the 1st Cavalry Division headquarters. The 3rd Infantry headquarters was originally scheduled to go this summer.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry, said Feb. 16 he has requested additional attack helicopters, and Gates said Wednesday that other unspecified requests for extra troops were being studied at the Pentagon.

Gordon England, the deputy defense secretary, told Congress this week that the total number of support troops could approach 7,000.

So if I'm adding this up right, we need to include 7,000 support troops, 1,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry, 2,400 more combat troops, and 2,000 military police are needed to be added to the initial 21,500 combat troops slated for the Bush troop surge. And those 21,500 combat troops in the initial Bush surge were to be supported by 2,400 support troops. If you add these numbers up, you get a final troop surge of 36,300 U.S. forces that are going to be shipped out to Iraq. Add that to the 141,000 U.S. forces already in Iraq, and you get a final troop count of 177,300 troops (Please feel free to check my figures here).

In terms of money, the Bush administration estimated that the troop surge cost would be $5.6 billion. And now the administration officials are saying that it is going to cost an extra $1 billion on top of the original $5.6 billion. That makes the costs go up to $6.6 billion--let's add another billion or two on top of that costs. What the heck--we're fighting the terrorists over there so we won't have to be fighting them here! In fact, it will certainly cost another billion or two if we keep those troops there until September or longer, rather than until the summer as the Bush administration had planned for.

I can see that this latest Bush troop surge is going to be a rip-roaring failure.

No comments: