We’re running out of troops

About a month ago, Adm. Michael Mullen, the incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that the president’s “surge” policy had a short shelf-life — troop deployments could be maintained only through April 2008. The Boston Globe reported today that the surge could last a little longer, but not much.

The Pentagon cannot sustain its current force levels in Iraq beyond next summer, effectively giving the Bush administration and the Iraqi government until the middle of 2008 to capitalize on recent security improvements before the US military must draw down its forces, according to US military officials and foreign policy analysts. […]

The practical limits on current troop deployments have led military officials and analysts to warn that there will be a window of less than 12 months for the military to show sustained, and sustainable, success — and for the Iraqi government to fashion a political settlement between warring factions.

By then, they said, the White House will have little choice but to phase down the American military commitment in Iraq.

Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, deputy commander in Iraq, told reporters it would be nearly impossible to sustain our troop presence beyond August 2008, questioning whether “there’s anybody to backfill those units” that leave Iraq at the end of the 15-month tour.

With this in mind, Slate’s Fred Kaplan explained, “The U.S. Army and Marines are simply running out of combat troops,” which leaves Bush with limited options. The administration could extend the soldiers’ tours of duty, again, which the Pentagon says is “off the table.” Bush could go to “full mobilization” of the Reserves, a first since WWII, which as Kaplan noted “would be a huge social disruption” for which the nation is unprepared. The administration could find troops in other countries willing to replace our own, but no one seems anxious to help out. Or Bush could reinstate a draft.

Given this reality, Kaplan argues, Bush should be toning down his rhetoric and lowering expectations “so that the inevitable drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq won’t appear to be a defeat.” Instead, the White House is doing the opposite.

The long and short of it is that by next spring some of the 20 U.S. combat brigades currently in Iraq — perhaps as many as a quarter to a half of them — will be pulling out, and nobody will replace them. This is a mathematical fact, quite apart from anything to do with the upcoming election or the war’s diminishing popularity.

Whether or not you regard this fact as lamentable, President Bush only makes things worse by howling that any pullback would erode American power and embolden the terrorists. Even if his warning is true, for a president to state it so urgently, over and over and over and over, deepens the damage when the storm hits. And given that the storm is certain to hit, it’s irresponsible — it’s baffling — that he’s howling so loudly.

When some U.S. troops start coming home next year, by necessity, our enemies will crow and brag that they were responsible. There’s just no reason for our president to make their job easier.

Bush went into Iraq with almost no planning, why would anyone expect the leopard to change its spots?

Sure, the responsible thing to do when you know the end will have to come is to start early and leave in an orderly, well-planned, intentional way. But that’s what the Democrat Party keeps sayin’ and God Fearin’ Republicans do the opposite of whatever those Democrats want. So what if it ends up looking like Saigon? At least we did it the Republican way!

  • Perhaps Bush will use this as an excuse to further privatize our armed forces? As insane as that whole situation is, it would fit his apparent goal of destroying existing institutions and replacing them with capabilities that he can control and at the same time benefit his high-rolling buddies.

  • Actually, what I would like to know is whether Bush could attempt to utilaterally authorize a draft. Could he make the argument that the AUMF provides him with the authority, as the unitary executive he claims to be, to reactivate the Selective Service System?

    It would be a political disaster of high order, but the man is crazy and obsessed. Could he attempt something like that?

    Any thoughts?

  • why should we doubt that soldiers’ tours of duty will be extended? because the pentagon says it’s “off the table?” like the pentagon has really stood up to the bush administration?

    all that’s necessary is to extend whichever poor souls need to be extended until january, 2009 and then bush doesn’t give a good god-damn.

  • Math is treason!

    Lol. Haik, as long as that doesn’t work any better for Bushie than it did the 1001 times I said it in my math classes, we’ll all be fine.

  • He’s going to attack Iran. Does he seriously think he can do all of this without increasing our troop deployment?

  • Re: Andrew @ #4

    Could he attempt something like that?

    Could he attempt something like this? The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.

    Any more questions?

  • Andrew @ 4: Given past patterns of behavior, I think it’s wise to assume there are no limits as to what Bush/Cheney will try to do claiming the president has the Constitutional power to do it. These guys have repeatedly and consistently thrown out common, historically agreed upon conventions as to what the Constitution means, asserting their own interpretations at will for their own benefit. Unless someone stops them, they get away with it. I would rule nothing out.

  • Actually, what I would like to know is whether Bush could attempt to utilaterally authorize a draft.

    I’d like to see him try it.

    What army is he going to use to arrest the people who would refuse to serve in a draft like that?

  • A draft would be political suicide for the Republicans, right?

    Wrong.

    Bush is going to start a draft, and he’s going to force the Democrats to help start it up, thus diffusing the issue for their side and splintering the Democrats.

    Here’s how it’ll happen: Bush will find some bogus reason to attack IRAN, and when iran takes its first swing at us in retaliation, when we lose our first serious casualties (probably in the form of a US ship in the gulf being sunk by a Russian or Chinese missile like the “Sunburn”) then Bush will demand that the congress approve a “temporary” draft, and the Democratic congress will approve the goddamn draft because “there’s a war on” and AIPAC will be packing every single talk show with people who will make Iran look like Hitler on steroids.

    It may happen another way, the Iranians might “attack us first” (maybe in retaliation for some shit we’re already pulling inside their borders).

    When a few hundred American sailors lose their lives at the hands of the Iranians, the Democrats will fold like a house of cards, not that they haven’t already. The draft will be OURS, not Bush’s. And progressives will split off into a third party BIG TIME. Republicans of course will rally round their leaders and march headlong into the quagmire.

    Congress hasn’t shown one ounce of balls yet, so why wouldn’t this happen?

  • “There’s just no reason for our president to make their job easier.”

    Yes there is. This isn’t about our troops. It isn’t about Iraq. It isn’t about al qaeda either. It is now all about blame. Bush will continue what he is doing because it can be maintained until around January 21, 2009. Then Bush can leave office, and all of the problems and tough decisions surrounding Iraq, to his predecessor, likely (and he hopes) a Democrat. Then he and his supporters/enablers can blame the Dems for any withdrawal and for the crowing and taunting of our ‘enemies.’ That is all this is about. Has been since 2005, if not sooner.

  • @13 RacerX hits something I’ve been wondering about. The military is stretched to the breaking point – no news there. Yet the regime has ratcheted up the sabre rattling with Iran. It makes no sense unless the objective is to provoke Iran into ‘forcing’ reinstatement of the draft. Bush then gets the glorious World War he appears to covet.

  • JoeW

    Interesting thought there. Let me step away from Bush’s possible desire for WWIII/WII and try this.

    He’s embarassed by Iraq. The military is in shambles. He’s got people who want him gunning for Iran anyway. He plays them up as WORSE than Hussein (he’s already discussed a nuclear holocaust).

    Attack Iran. Re-instate the draft (of course with plenty of deferment options for the “right” people). The wingnuts back it because they follow the leader. He hopes he comes out smelling like a rose.

    Of course a draft would be a dismal failure here, quite frankly. And he’d be hated even more. But in his mind.

  • “There’s just no reason for our president to make their job easier.”

    Well, yes, there is. He’s an idiot, and he still gets mash notes on pink stationary from Osama bin Laden.

  • Hm. What a coincidence. Summer of ’08, eh? Just in time to give those Republican senators and representatives a bit of a boost. I’ll bet they’ve already got the flyers designed: Mission Accomplished, Withdrawal Complete!

  • There is one division still available for deployment that is very tanned and rested — the 101st Fighting Keyboardists. They should be deployed where the action is heaviest because they have been spoiling for a fight for a very long time.

    Haik – I guess both the truth and math must have a well-known liberal bias.

  • The escalation was sold to buy six months (one Friedman), then the end of the 2007, then April 2008, now we’re hearing August 2008. That’s about three Friedmans. Even Jan. 2009 is far from the magic date.There’s no end, folks. We aren’t going to get out of Iraq. It took the Brits almost 40 years to create modern Iraq (1920-1958). Why would it take less time now to restabilize the area?

    As for a draft. If Bush tells Congress he needs a draft, especially in light of heavy losses for some reason, HE’LL GET A DRAFT either by executive order or with the enthusiastic collaboration of the Dim-Dems. Forget impeachment if he does it unilaterally. Rich peoples’ kids won’t be drafted, and the rabble won’t rise up because the plans to prevent civil disturbances are already in place. It’s a dictatorship. Get used to it.

  • Iran doesn’t need to do anything. ShrubCo has no scruples. I don’t think it even takes a tinfoil hat to imagine the multitude of war gamed false flag attack scenarios that are in Dick and Shruby’s desks that go back in time farther than ShrubCo itself. Also, no doubt at all that nukes in some form are “on the table”. Maybe “for us”. Maybe “against us”. But they’re there.

    There’s only one group of people who Shruby is concerned with regarding his legacy. It ain’t historians and it ain’t the ‘Merican people. It’s his corporate peers. He hasn’t given all of the American treasury away and he hasn’t finished making the world nice for them in the Middle East. It’s United Fruit all the way with the Banana in Banana Republic being replaced by Oil. There will be The Rich…and those who will fight for and serve The Rich. Everyone not in the rich group is potential cannon fodder or war support. Especially those who think the “war” is B.S. Things are closing in fast right now. SNAFU’s strong pincers are snapping away at His Shrubness. If you think he sounded petulant and pissed that his beloved little Abu G. was being taken away, think how profoundly irritated he will be if he knows that his Chocolate Sundae with Sprinkles of a “war” is being removed from his wittle arms.

    Trying to rationally discuss troop strength and making believe that some uncorrupted common sense is actually in play here is as wrong and silly as pissing in the wind. If Shruby looks out his window and sees enough non-rich people on the street, then there are enough people for his war. Days of reckoning are fast approaching. It’s about time.

  • Comments are closed.