Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge" (CBO says actual increase could be as high as 48,000)

[jefferson_dem]

Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge"

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.

<SNIP>

To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops—a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel—about 3,000 per combat brigade—totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000.

According to the study, the costs for the "surge" would also be dramatically different than the President says. While the White House has estimated a troop escalation would require about $5.6 billion in additional funding, the CBO believes that figure could be as high as $27 billion.

If DoD deployed a total of 48,000 troops, and sustained that level for four months, costs would be about $13 billion higher than for the current force levels, CBO estimates (see the table below). The 20,000 combat forces account for $5 billion of that cost. If the higher level was maintained for 12 months, costs would be $27 billion higher than the current level—$11 billion of which would fund the combat forces alone. Costs would increase by lesser amounts if the combat forces were accompanied by fewer support personnel. If additional forces totaled 35,000 troops, CBO estimates that sustaining such a deployment would cost $9 billion for four months and $20 billion for 12 months.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003239.html

[Bjornsdotter]

1. Wow, deja vu

....sounds like Nixon.

cheers

[havocmom]

2. Congress: Pull his credit card! NOW! (n/t)

[formercia]

3. Lies work

he learned that from his daddy.

[aquart]

4. Because these soldiers NEED that support, doesn't mean George will send it.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

12. Speaker Pelosi should say..We'll fund the safe return of our soldiers and NOTHING ELSE!

Someday everyone will know it was Cheney's plan to go into the Middle East even before 9-11.

If democrats don't stop this insanity...our party will be in the mud with the GOP.

Why is the DLC letting this happen?

This is how the DLC wants dems to handle the surge....I found this at their web site.


>>>snip

Fourth, a congressional effort to cut funding would be seen in the country as an attempt to seize control of Iraq policy. If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails.

Will Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute.

<<<end

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=254171

[Recursion]

19. Well, they'll be hard pressed to do much without gas, food, and ammo...

...or the pogues that give it to them.

[aquart]

25. So. Nothing's changed.

[sarge43]

5. Oh what a surprise!

We were lied to -- again.

He breathes; he lies.

[Nickster]

6. Is it an escalation yet? n/t

[acmavm]

7. Scheming little f**k needs to be put in his place. WHERE ARE

OUR ELECTED REPS GODDAMMIT!

[Richard D]

8. Surge becomes a splurge.

[TexasLawyer]

9. even more troops on the carriers

I don't think any of these totals count the arrival of the second carrier in the Gulf. That carrier has brought several thousand additional U.S. military personnel into the area.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. I was just thinking that myself --

any idea how many Marines would be assigned to a carrier group? They wouldn't count as an official part of the 'surge', and I should think it would be no less than several companies, a couple battalions.

[gordianot]

Let's just make Iraq the 51st State.

PURE :sarcasm:

[krispos42]

10. Sumbitch! K&R

Somehow Bush forgot that in all of his speeches!

[Peace Patriot]

11. Whatever these criminals do, it's aways worse. So figure 60-80 military

personel increase, and $50 billion. They'll be sending school crossing guards next. (And what about the NAVY increase? Did that get counted?)

They count troops like they count votes.

[OregonBlue]

13. EMAIL Warner and Levin before they pass their NONBINDING resolution!! Here are the links.

EMAIL them:

http://levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.htm

[Double T]

14. The biggest credit debt spender of all time needs to be cut off,..........

THEN take away HIS NO LIMIT credit accounts and force HIM into a debt reduction program. America can no longer afford to support HIS obsessive 'war' habit.

[endarkenment]

15. They intend to attack Iran. nt.

[truthisfreedom]

16. And they'll start that war "accidentally" like the stupid articles that have been coming out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2712045

This "preparation" for us to accept the inevitable is all part of their disinformation/propaganda/propagenda machinery.

[EVDebs]

18. Correct, it's a predeployment prior to attacking Iran nt

[Kagemusha]

17. The alternative to this scenario is: more frontline troops with less support

That's not necessarily better mind you.

[olddad56]

21. It is an investment in our future. Invest your son right away.

[saigon68]

29. Mine won't go

They say FUCK YOU to the Chimp and the NeoCons

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. Bush is taking a cue from Brittany's Divorce lawyer.

[w4rma]

23. "as high as"? That number is much too low for how many troops would be needed in an escalation

to make any difference whatsoever in this situation.

[crickets]

24. Everything * says is ALWAYS a lie. No matter what. It's unreal. nt

[alfredo]

26. Last week a source said they were sending supplies for

60,000. The extra supplies could be playing catch up, or their estimate is low.

[ohio2007]

27. Casey: Only Half of Troop Boost Needed

http://story.news.ask.com//article/20070202/D8N187503.html

I thought we originally went in "to light" ?
WHo to believe?

[oneinok]

28. He needs the extra for...

Bush wants more troops to help look for all of those WMD's that were never found.

[struggle4progress]

30. Don't have enough equipment for 21K more? Then send 48 K more!

:banghead:

[El Supremo]

31. CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000

By Rick Maze - Staff writer - Army Times
Posted : Friday Feb 2, 2007 5:55:13 EST

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.

The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces.

“Over the past few years, DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops,” says the five-page report requested by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed Services Committee chairman.

Spratt, the budget committee chairman and the second-ranking Democrat on the armed services committee, notes that about $379 billion already has been spent on the war in Iraq and a request for an additional $100 billion is expected next week....

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

[laruemtt]

32. says "this page has gone AWOL!" n/t

[El Supremo]

33. Fixed now. n/m

[laruemtt]

34. thanks. gonna send this to my list. n/t