AN INCREASE IN U.S. FORCES COULD REQUIRE REVERSAL OF PENTAGON POLICY....
By E. Barnes
WASHINGTON - Top U.S. military officials, expecting President Bush to order an illegal increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army's National Guard and reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq, defense officials said Monday.
Under Pentagon policy, Guard and reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. Under that rule, most reserve units already sent to Iraq are ineligible to return. But that will change.
But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant buildup would require the Pentagon to overturn the policy and send Guard and reserve units for additional yearlong tours.No doubt many troops will cry.
Such an order probably would be controversial among state governors.
Why are the military troops against the 20,000 troop surge Mr Bush wants?
Some of you hit it right on the buzzer! Maybe the crazy-gun-hole troops want to go. But for the most part who wants to leave their normal lives (family friends for more than 60 days) I鈥檝e been in the military for 7 yrs and believe me there are a lot of troops out there who don't support this administration. Most people don't say anything because we鈥檙e not suppose to speak publicly about it. Even when you see political leaders addressing the media, most of the troops are only standing behind them because it is mandatory for them to be there. It's all staged for propaganda, so the public will believe the troops are standing behind their Commander in Chief 100%. NOT!!!
Why are the military troops against the 20,000 troop surge Mr Bush wants?
Yep........
Cpt Inf
Nam '68-69
Report Abuse
until bush goes there is unlikely to be any sense to american policey.
the fool will bring the whole world tumbling down
most of us in iraq unlike you have not seen our families, some for almost the entirety of the war, i speak for myself when i say that i would love to have 20 to 30 thousand more guys out here fighting with me..but the problem is that most of the people that will be added are the ones that barely are getting home from years away..and if you support this, than i welcome you to come and fight alongside me. and im sorry for crying and disrupting your perfect little life, here you will be welcomed in to the life of trying to outlive every day..
The troops are against it because the troops on the ground in Iraq, the ones who actually know what is going on becuase they are living and breathing it 24/7, every single day, have said that there is no point. Our troops have lost their purpose and effectiveness, and the Army knows it. The only problem is that Mr. Bush has a pride problem and refuses to admit defeat.
The situation in Iraq now is more anarchy than civil war. We are serving no purpose there aside from watching people shoot one another, and occassionally, one of our American sons/husbands/friends/cousins/brothers/o鈥?loved ones. It's ridiculous.
What looks good on paper for Mister Bush wouldn't look half as realistic if he'd get out of his plush office and go put on a uniform and patrol the sand for a while.
I'm curious as to what troop you people have been polling? Please don't express your own opinion as if it were mine. Unless you've been to Iraq (which I have), you have no idea what it's like. You can watch CNN all you want, but they just replay the same bad news over and over. Did you ever stop to think why the play the same story several times in a day? I just might be because that's the only bad thing that happened that day and the rest is good. They just don't air the good because it doesn't make them money.
Whenever you say that troops are for or against something, you'll want to make sure at least half of them share that opinion. That'll probably take a while.
Because the troops are susceptible to the lies and constant negative reporting of liberal bias - yes bias - then they repeat what they hear.
I have said all along we need more troops (even longer rotations if needed) to close the borders, root out terrorist strong holds, train the Iraqis, and rebuild the infrastructure. Yes MORE TROOPS - even me!
Ricardo - You say you're a Soldier in Iraq and haven't seen your family - I think you're not being totally honest (to be nice). Army policy is to rotate ALL Soldiers and units in and out. You may be on a second rotation (or perhaps even third) but you cannot sit there and tell me you've been there non-stop since March 2003. I know because I have done two rotations and nobody I know of was there since March 2003.
Another case of the HABITUAL LIAR named Erudite adding lies and fabrications to a copyrighted article in a FEEBLE attempt to fool people.... and yet again I expose him for the liar that he is.... erudite, you have been caught in your lies and exposed SO many times that your credibility is about as worthwhile as a 4 pound bag of dog crap.
Let us list the fabrications this liar has put into the article....
%26quot;illegal increase%26quot;
%26quot;But that will change.%26quot;
%26quot;No doubt many troops will cry.%26quot;
Let us see the REAL article, shal we???!!!
%26quot;WASHINGTON 鈥?The nation's top military officials, expecting President Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army's National Guard and Reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq, Defense Department officials said Monday.
Under Pentagon policy, Guard and Reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. That means most Reserve units that already have been sent to Iraq are ineligible to return. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant troop buildup would require the Pentagon to send Guard and Reserve units for additional yearlong tours.
Such an order probably would be controversial among the nation's governors 鈥?who share authority over the Guard 鈥?and could heighten concerns in Congress over the war and Bush's plans for a troop increase. In addition, National Guard leaders were skeptical of calls for additional combat tours, which they fear could hurt recruiting and retention.
%26quot;If you have to sustain a surge long-term, you have to use the Guard and Reserve,%26quot; said a Defense Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the president had not unveiled his strategy shift.
Bush, who is set to announce his new policy Wednesday, met on Monday with about a dozen Republican senators to discuss the plan. After the meeting, Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.) said Bush appeared to be planning an increase of 20,000 troops.
%26quot;It was clear to me that a decision was made for a surge of 20,000 additional troops,%26quot; Smith said. %26quot;He did not affirm that that would be the number, but he said roughly 鈥?that amount. I understood it as a hypothetical.%26quot;
Any boost in combat forces will require some increase in Reserve support units, such as engineering or intelligence teams. But because of training requirements, National Guard infantry forces are unlikely to be used as part of the initial buildup. However, they would be needed later in the year to sustain a higher level of forces.
Defense Department officials say it would be difficult to build up an extra 20,000 soldiers and Marines quickly. Although there is a Reserve brigade in Kuwait, building up to the full expansion may take until late March or April, an Army official said. The expected increase is likely to rely heavily on speeding up the deployments of units that had been scheduled to ship to Iraq in the summer, while extending the tours of Marine and Army units due to return from Iraq in late spring and summer.
It is unclear which National Guard units would be tapped to go as part of a troop buildup, although officials said it was likely that the first Guard units sent into Iraq would be considered for the first return tours.
The 1st Battalion, 185th Armored Regiment, from San Bernardino, and the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, from Modesto, are the biggest units from the California National Guard that have served in Iraq. Members of the 185th, now an infantry unit, served in Iraq from early 2004 until 2005 and could be among the first sent for a return tour.
In early 2005, the National Guard and Reserves made up nearly half the fighting force in Iraq. Today, of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq, one is from the National Guard 鈥?although there are other smaller Reserve units also deployed in Iraq.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker has complained publicly that the policy against involuntary second tours has forced the National Guard to cobble together units from dozens of states, rather than sending whole battalions or brigades that have worked and trained together.
%26quot;Current policies restrict our ability to remobilize Reserve component units, and, in my view, the current policies are more restrictive than need be under the law and hamper our ability to remobilize the best-trained, best-led and best-equipped units,%26quot; Schoomaker said last month.%26quot;
