Iraq Troop 'Surge' Numbers Could Double: Real troop increase could be as high as 48,000

[bigtree]

February 01, 2007

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.

That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes:

Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.

DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.

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 now "estimates that costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment, depending upon the total number of troops deployed." (There's a more detailed analysis of the numbers on pages 3 and 4 of the study.)

CBO study: http://www.defensetech.org/images/Troop%20Increase%20Spratt%20Letter.pdf

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,123821,00.html


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[YDogg]

1. But, but, but ... don't you believe the pretzelnit??

[LonelyLRLiberal]

2. And, of course, the support troops are in danger, too

I know someone recently sent back over for a second deployment in a non-combat civil engineering position, and she said they were going to be using helicopters for transport instead of traveling by land because of the obvious dangers of land transport. Now, we are seeing helicopters being shot down regularly, including those just ferrying people around. I worry for my friend, as well as for everyone else put in danger by the madman in charge - Chimperor George.

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Basically, I lied to you and the troops. As usual." Commander AWOL

"smirk smirk. just you watch, oil & munitions profits are going
to skyrocket for me and my republicon cronies. Smirk, smirk, smirk."

- Commander AWOL

[Botany]

4. It should be news when he tells the truth.

Every friggin' word out of his mouth seems to be a lie.

If he told me that @ midnight Jan 1 on the top of Mt. Washington in
N.H., "It is cold and dark," I would put on my swim suit and sun block.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

5. Hold On

G. Casey said today in hearings that he thought they needed less than half that number...

[bigtree]

6. I'm looking at the same story

Casey Favors Smaller Troop Hike

Associated Press | February 01, 2007

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq told a Senate panel Thursday that improving security in Baghdad would take fewer than half as many extra troops as President Bush has chosen to commit.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on his nomination to be Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey said he had asked for two additional Army brigades, based on recommendations of his subordinate commanders. Bush announced Jan. 10 that he would send five extra brigades as part of a buildup that would total 21,500 soldiers and Marines.

Asked by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., why he had not requested the full five extra brigades that Bush is sending, Casey said, "I did not want to bring one more American soldier into Iraq than was necessary to accomplish the mission."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,123819,00.html

He says they'll use them anyway . . .

[cui bono]

7. I was just going to post this... Think Progress has this story.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/cbo-iraq-escalation/

[bigtree]

9. thanks, cui bono

[Skink]

8. If we are going to attack Iran we have to get the troops there somehow.

The public won't buy WMD this time so it must be done covertely.

[bigtree]

10. they seem more in the way than anything else

I imagine if Bush does attack it will be with bombs, not troops on the ground.

[Ghost Dog]

11. Here go some (by the clandestine maritime route):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x94643

[bigtree]

12. .