» When "supporting our troops" means keeping them in Iraq

10 March 2007 - 10:35am

When "supporting our troops" means keeping them in Iraq

media girl's picture

The Pentagon is stretched to the limit.

Faced with a military buildup in Iraq that could drag into next year, Pentagon officials are trying to identify enough units to keep up to 20 brigade combat teams in Iraq. A brigade usually has about 3,500 troops.

The likely result will be extending the deployments of brigades scheduled to come home at the end of the summer, and sending others earlier than scheduled....

...The complex scheduling must identify which units would have been home for 12 months and be trained and ready to go, plus whether the needed equipment would be available and what impact a schedule change has on other plans for the equipment or troops months down the road.

Combat troops, meanwhile, are coming to realize that the Pentagon can't fulfill its commitment to give soldiers two years at home for every year they spend deployed.

This is what happens when a war has no popular support and its biggest supporters are chickenhawks.

0
About author
User picture

media girl also blogs at other places.

Comments

zak822's picture
zak822 says:

Actually, the early problems are going to be with replacing equipment rather than troops. That one will come later, and will linger on for years.

Equipment is being used up at a stunning pace. Our high-tech military gear is the WWII gear that could be run off on assembly lines in relatively short order. It is complex, expensive and hard to maintain in field conditions. Replacement of equipment has received very little attention, either in the press or in DoD budget lines.

"Combat troops, meanwhile, are coming to realize that the Pentagon can't fulfill its commitment...", and so have the people in the potential pool of recruits. Others see this, and it does not encourage them to enlist in any service, but especially in the Army or Marines. Young people of age to serve do not believe the nation is in peril from al-Qaeda, not in an existential sense. And they are not rushing to the ramparts to defend America. That tells it's own story. The Army has had to raise the upper age limit twice, and pulled back people who thought they had retired or that they had served their time and could bet on with their lives. And they're still having trouble making their recruitment goals.

But the issue doesn't get any real ink, because the fate of the troops is not really a topic for discussion. Even after the Walter Reed revealations. People now expect soldiers to go fight till the fightin' is done; they don't expect "whining" about getting out of combat as promised. This is especially true of the "support the troops" crowd.


(12 March 2007 - 11:44am)
media girl's picture

Rather frightening, isn't it? Especially when you consider how dangerous the world is otherwise.


(12 March 2007 - 9:41pm)

store

Not Your Emininent Domain!

Buy stuff here.

» When "supporting our troops" means keeping them in Iraq