Surge Numbers Require Clarification

h/t Instapundit for this link to Powerline. With all the coverage, people are getting apples mixed up with oranges.

I am deeply skeptical of the "Goldilocks" theory of victory in Iraq: we have to have just the right number of troops to be successful; not too many, not too few. It's hard to imagine what 149,000 troops can accomplish that 140,000 couldn't--especially if the mission of most of those additional 9,000 is to pacify Baghdad.

While there are 140,000 troops in theater, as of December, only 52,500 of them are combat troops. Also available in pdf via Real Clear Politics. Assuming we surge combat, as opposed to training forces, a troop surge of 9,000 would equate to almost a 20% increase. And the math is even more complex than that.

Yes, we may deploy 9,000 troops early - from what I have read, these are not troops out of thin air, but troops which would eventually be deployed to Iraq from 1 - 3 months later.

At the same time, some troops currently in Iraq would, as others have already experienced, have their deployments extended. On a month per month basis, that increases the number of troops on the ground at any given time well beyond the 9,000 number.

One can debate the concept of extending tours, or early deployments, I'm not prepared to speak to that issue as regards the particular forces involved. But the way these deployments would be handled given our already significant deployment, would result in a real increase of well over the 9,000 troops whoever gave that information to the press might like us to believe.

It has always been envisioned that deployment schedules would feed the surge and given the 9,000 number plus current numbers of actual combat forces on the ground and sliding deployments, along with any possible augmentation from reserve or guard forces, the net effect would be a significant percentage increase over what we have now.

The reality is, as I understand it, we would have to push hard for from 1 - 1.5 years, and, yes, we would absolutely be pushing the envelope - but with the right Rules of Engagement, if there is any military on the planet that can get things under control with a surge strategy, it's ours.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

The overthrow of the Taliban was accomplished with only a few hundred guys on the ground.

If you want to ink blot and take ground, that needs quantity. If you want to zap bad guys, it doesn't.

[MinorRipper]

hopefully any new 'surge' troops won't be anything like the soldiers in these videos:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.html

[warrenb]

Pure idiocy at best. Pure lunacy at worst.

Cmon Dan, can't you come up with something better than that? Freakin moron. THE TROOPS and I mean ALL TROOPS need to come home NOW!

We need to End this MINDLESS charade...not prolong it.

[Purple Avenger]

Ripper, that shit is getting old. You've been pimping that clip all over the net for about a week now.

[Purple Avenger]

Warren - proud advocate of genocide.

[old trooper]

Kerry has pimped himself to any Enemy of the US for decades. Fact, not Fiction.
Nobody bought it but the fools in his home state.

He lost the last election for that address at Pennsylvania Avenue, has since pissed on his own boots several times and is still the self annointed, self appointed poster child for "stuck on stupid".

Lets move on. Kerry is an ass and a dead issue.

[jolari]

Lets move on. Kerry is an ass and a dead issue.

Posted by: old trooper | Saturday, January 06, 2007 at 12:28 AM

So why post about him then?

[James]

The surge idea falls in the catagory of, "too little too late".

Plus there is no solid defined mission for what extra troops they do send.

The key to Iraq is "control". But that would take 100,000 more combat troops, plus the support troops. Control could be achieved in a year, but you'd have to get rid of the current Iraq government as it's a mess and start all over again with a new election.

One more thing you need. A solid mission statement that doesn't change over time. Bush has only 2 years left. It can't be done.

So it's going to be as it is for 2 more years, or pull out. There is an in-between thing but Bush wouldn't be able to do it. It would take real leadership.

[Alex]

"The reality is, as I understand it, we would have to push hard for from 1 - 1.5 years, and, yes, we would absolutely be pushing the envelope - but with the right Rules of Engagement, if there is any military on the planet that can get things under control with a surge strategy, it's ours."

Also, George Allen won Virginia, Jamil Hussein doesn't exist and Santa Claus is real.

[Jon G]

Perhaps you missed the last election, but the American public is fed up with the current policy and carnage in Iraq. A few thousand troops isn't going to make any difference so the Surge is doomed to failure. I understand Bush doesn't want to go down in history as the first president to start and lose a war but the American public seems resigned to that end. And they've been wrong about absolutely everything in Iraq so far, why should we believe them now?

You want more troops in Iraq? You need to start talking about a draft because the current policies have just about broken the Army and the Surge is simply going to make it that much worse.

[lewis]

NEVER happen. It's more likely that Bush will be impeached. God knows there's a myriad of charges to choose from. It's really not that big a deal. Clinton became even more popular his impeachment. with Bush at 30%, maybe impeachment will help his poll numbers and credibility. He can't go any lower.

[Dan Riehl]

It's a shame that the Left wants America to lose so badly, it really is.