Pentagon raises estimate of troops for Iraq(inching up towards 30,000)

[maddezmom]

Pentagon raises estimate of troops for Iraq
06 Mar 2007 18:31:15 GMT
Source: Reuters

Background
• Iraq in turmoil


MORE >>
(Recasts with new lead, details throughout)

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - The number of U.S. troops needed to carry out President George W. Bush's Iraq security plan could approach 30,000, significantly more than he projected in January, a senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said U.S. military commanders in Iraq were requesting varying numbers of support troops to augment the additional 21,500 soldiers Bush has ordered into combat.

"At this point, our expectation is the number of ... troops could go above 21,500 by about 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000," England said.

There are nearly 140,000 U.S. troops already fighting in Iraq, where sectarian violence has thwarted American efforts to bring the 4-year-old war to a close.

more:http://mobile.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06410987.htm

[TheBaldyMan]

1. Don't forget 120,000 mercenaries, oops I mean 'security consultants'

That's according to what Robert Fisk said on Democracy Now during his hour long interview.#

Guess what, mercenary deaths don't count as military casualties!

[Earth_First]

2. How many additional combat support units need to be deployed to support 30,000 combat troops?

Anyone know approximately how many additional support units would be needed to support this?

I remember when the initial 21,500 was announced, it was within days announced that the 21,500 troops would be "combat" units, with a total of 40,000 when combat support units included.

Will this be another round of semantics? Or will the current combat support units be forced to maintain a larger force with further limited resources?

[TomInTib]

3. They are low-balling everything.

For a specific-task force (which this surely is), it would take at least 90,000 support troops.

But the DoD will probably try force-sharing to support these guys in the "surge".

Guaranteed failure.

Or maybe they will privatize the support of this force.

Guaranteed profits, but failure nonetheless.

[Karenina]

4. In the words of the sainted Nancy Reagan

JUST.SAY.NO.

[WePurrsevere]

5. And then another few thousand.. & another & another. When is

enough ENOUGH... when do we stop this insanity? How many more thousands will have to die for a war based on LIES, POWER and GREED? :grr:

[MGD]

11. It will only be enough when someone figures out how to run a machine on something other than petrol.

Let's not kid ourselves about why we are establishing a foothold in the middle-east.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Up to 7,000 extra US soldiers may be deployed in Iraq

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/middle-east/article2336145.ece
Belfast Telegraph
Wednesday, March 07, 2007

A Pentagon official has said an extra 7,000 US soldiers may have to be sent to Iraq on top of the 21,500 already announced by President George W Bush.

[rodeodance]

7. yup and 5-6 MORE Billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[dkofos]

8. More tour extensions more stop loss MORE BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$

And Dems will vote to fund the war next year.

[Doctor_J]

9. Getting just like Nam, except now the media works for the government

and so ends the greatest nation in history.

[uppityperson]

10. but they are just "support troops" so don't matter.

:sarcasm: They can easily double the number by saying they were talking only about those going out on patrol. What a bunch of crap.

[paparush]

12. Interesting that the DOD just secured cemetary space for 7,000

http://www.military.com/veterans-report/va-awards-contract-for-rock-island-cemetery?ESRC=vr.nl

[Nickster]

13. The CBO reported that the initial "surge" estimate was way off to begin with.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/TNScbosurge070201/

"A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region."

-snip-

“What the CBO found concerns me,” Skelton said. Part of his worry is based on Schoomaker’s assertion that additional support troops are not needed. Skelton worries combat troops might not have the combat support and combat service support needed if the administration tries to hold down the number of deployed troops.

Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations that has launched a review of Iraq-related costs, said he also is concerned. “I am disturbed that the administration's figures may not be fully accounting for what a true force increase will entail; if combat troops are deployed, their support needs must not be shortchanged,” Meehan said in a statement.

[maddezmom]

14. every troop they send over needs support

a surge of 1 + at least that many behind the scenes.

[Nickster]

15. That's the question really. Are they going to stick with the 21k troop number

they gave us which means very little actual combat troop increase. Or, did they lie and plan to have a much larger number of troops. ORRRR, did they plan on having just 21k combat troops and then they are just going to skimp like crazy on the support services or privatize it. The last option is what I'm really nervous about, because that's the way I think they are going.

[wordpix]

16. Bushco & Congress better get that Walter Reed mess cleaned up b/c here come more wounded soldiers