Via Shakesville, we learn that Hearst Newspapers did a little reading between the Pentagon lines:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

I'm speechless.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

I really really hope this analysis is wrong. What is definitely not reassuring is that we now have a military surge industry that is making very very big bucks on the war, and stand to lose out on mega cash flows when we withdraw. Dina Rasor writes in The Huffington Post:

Unlike the Military Industrial Complex which makes weapons whether we are at war or not, this new industry relies on hot wars or occupations to survive. Where will they go if we withdraw from Iraq and don't insert ourselves into another country? Will they just fade away? History says not, once an industry that is totally reliant on the federal government for its main funding and existence emerges, it is very hard to kill off.

If the DOD and the country decide to stay in Iraq for a long period, the war service industry will continue to have something to service. The question is that if we don't stay, will their lobby and constituency, flush with huge amounts of supplemental money, push us towards a new hot war or occupation to keep them employed? Not enough questions are being asked about the long term effects this large amount of supplemental money is having on our military and our foreign policy.

(Emphasis added.)

Talk about f*cking depressing. War profiteering is commonplace enough where it's a cliché now, but this modern incarnation is largley thanks to Dick Cheney, who's been a busy bee "privatizing" military operations since he was Secretary of Defense.

Will the mainstream media even pretend to cover this? Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question.

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.