Posted on 04/05/2007 4:35:00 PM PDT by txroadkill
WASHINGTON - Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials told NBC News on Thursday.
The troops will come from four Guard combat brigades in different states, the officials told NBC News’ chief Pentagon correspondent, Jim Miklaszewski. They said papers ordering the deployment, which would run for one year beginning in early 2008, were awaiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ signature.
The deployment is sure to ignite a firestorm on Capitol Hill, where Democrats in Congress are maneuvering to scale back the U.S. commitment in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is pushing a proposal to end most spending on the war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al-Qaida, training for Iraqi troops and protection for U.S. forces.
“I think this was all concealed until we got through the election,” said retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a military analyst for NBC News. “There’s no way to sustain the current rate of deployments without calling up probably nine National Guard brigades in the coming year for involuntary second tours.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Hmmmmm....there’s a big buildup of US military in the Gulf...has anyone started a pool for the date of the US strike against Iran?
LOL! What have you been smoking? There will be no attack on Iran by anyone including Israel.
Does anyone else think we should just keep all the National Guard here at home?
Let me be the first to enter the pool. I say the bombing will begin on June 3rd. Don't ask me why I chose that date, just pulled it out of my magic hat.
“Coming on the heels of a controversial “surge” of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin...”
Stopped reading right there.
What you have to look for is Bush building up the national reserve. The only thing preventing it is fear of what cutting off the Iranian oil supply will do to the economy.
“controversial “surge”. As the bias in the MSM continues.
FNC now reporting it. Gates won’t sign unit Friday...if he does.
The national Guard is voluntary. No one is drafted into the guard. They chose to serve, and God bless them for their service.
Don't be silly, I just watched 60 Minutes tell me how they are "tricked" into the National Guard. And we all know how truthful and unbiased 60 Minutes is.
Hurray! My son has back-up. He’s getting tired of terrorists taking shots at him.
Yep. When the right takes back the house, senate, and presidency in 2008, the left wing is going to freak!
“...ordering the deployment, which would run for one year beginning in early 2008...”
C'mon. You don't really have a magic hat. You got it from that ugly man, Rosie, on the New and Improved Jerry Springer View show.
actually, the deployment was always a possibility.. but what gets me is this.
Granted an ethnic cleansing is under way and getting worse. I think that gates is stating in a round a bout fashion what is known by most to be fact, that things are bad and getting worse. ethnic cleansing = civil war.
But what irritates me is that the POTUS seems hellbound to agitate a congress, with a recess appointment, and seems incapable of grasping that there is no real war.. I mean lets be concise, there was no “declaration of war” on the part of the US governmennt upon terror or Iraq.
And as bad as things are going, as poorly as they were mismanaged, the real lack of troops, real lack of progress, and the real threat of a humanitarian crisis beyond the damage done doesn’t seem to sink in with this president.
I just think that the comments about Pelosi, recess appointment, and the real need for more troops and the urgency of mission must have Sec Def Gates and the National Guard exasperated by the ‘commander in chief.’
Before this war started somebody said “wildly off the mark!” and whom might that have been?
We never had enough troops and short of a draft and a year or two to field light infantry, no real alternatives, but the Guard.
You must be referring to Tokyo Rosie, the fat lesbian that looks mysteriously like my uncle Hank.
This war would have been over a long time ago if Americans worked together to win it. As long as the democrats and their left wing media continue to give the enemy hope, they'll keep fighting until we surrender.
Think Vietnam. The left did the same thing to America back then. John Kerry and the Horrywood commies were working hand in hand with the Vietnamese the same way they're encouraging the terrorists to keep killing Americans in Iraq.
There is an 800 lb gorilla in the living room...look away.
Anyone know which states? Didn't see it in the article.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2007/04/levin040507.html
The point is that this should have never been politicized in the first place.
There are those whom put party before principles, or even the nation, but to continue to burden the same group of soldiers, repeatedly, besides what their contract allows.. is wrong.
I’m sure there is a reasonable and significant number who understand the logistics of a nation with approximately 25 million inhabitants being policed by 150K.
The initial architects of this debacle seem oddly isolated from the consequences, or worse yet, agitate and irritate those sucked into their poor policy.
And yes.. things are going bad to worse.
“Granted an ethnic cleansing is under way and getting worse.”
Your post is a colossal construct of ignorance.
It was just reported last week that civilian deaths are down 30% in Baghdad, and 50% elsewhere. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1809373/posts. There have been multiple reports of Anbar tribal leaders turning against Al Qaeda for months now.
You’re promoting Nancy’s vision? Pelosi still thinks this is a civil war, something only 27% of Iraqis agree with: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259405,00.html
Nancy Pelosi said she feels “sad” President Bush blamed insurgent violence on al Qaeda. What a fool…http://forthisworld.blogspot.com/
Being that 90% of car bombings are conducted by foreign jihadists, and al Qaeda claims to have 12,000 fighters in Iraq, what’s that say about the true “civil” nature of this war? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1736438/posts
There is no prescribed way to declare war. Despite claims of people with an anti-Bush agenda, this is by any reasonable measure a war.
No-one but anti-war group give a draft the slighted consideration.
“Does anyone else think we should just keep all the National Guard here at home?”
Yes.
I’ll not substantiate or quibble your claims of progress with the reality of needing more troops...
It would just seem to me that considering the proposition:
We should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, leave Iraq until they have elections and form a government seems open-ended.
And the manner which some in a cavalier manner suggest that repeated deployments are not an issue is amazing.
What really irritates me is the manner in which the people whom sold this bad idea of a war in the first place seem hellbent on irritating those whom they now insist be burdened with their initial decision.
While I whole heartedly agree with the SEC DEF assesment, it further underscores why I feel that the POTUS is not the leader to assist him in avoding the humanitarian crisis.
I myway or the Iway from these folks when they ask for continued sacrifice from the same small group is galling...
That is really how I feel, unfortunately the NATIONAL GUARD has to go....
“wildly off the mark...”
I would agree, except what is the buildup for? How many aircraft carriers do we have in the Gulf now? And how many on the way? It seems like a lot of money just to flex our muscles.
“We should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, leave Iraq until they have elections and form a government seems open-ended.”
You know absolutely nothing but democrat propaganda. Three elections are complete, the government has been formed for 14 months. How could you even pretend to have an educated opinion on the war if you don’t know that?
Those complaining of humanitarian crisis were the most silent when Saddam was killing hundreds of thousands, a small fraction of the deaths from Iraq’s current struggle (unless you ask the anti-war left). Most of those people were never concerned with our military sacrifices before. But re-enlistment is through the roof; at least it was 6 months ago when I last checked. It’s not possible that the troops are unjustly sacrificed, used and abused as the anti-Bush crowd claims if re-enlistment is at record highs. You’re talking nonsense.
The military in general supports Bush, Gates and Petraeus’s strategy, but their political opposition’s “hell-bent” on driving a wedge between them on forums like this. Know anyone like that?
Yes.
*********************************************
Then you both need some education on the Constitutional role of the National Guard.
A National Guard constrained to domestic activity is a police force, and such activity is best left to real police forces.
Aircraft carriers come and go and have to be somewhere. Regardless of what one thinks should happen nothing will be done w.r.t Iran. There is no political capital available in this country or Britain. It was all used up by Iraq.
You’re absolutely right.
People often confuse what they think will happen with what they want and wish will happen.
Police can’t control all the crime in our own major cities. I’m glad for the National Guard stationed in the U.S., in case there is a sudden need.
Hopefully, nothing will arise. But with the borders open as they are, I’m thankful to have Guard troops here in the U.S.
SEC DEF Gates in my honest opinion deserves a chance to stabilize the situation. I thought his responses to the press were measured and indicative of a pragmatic assesment of the circumstances.
I also was refreshed at his request to shut down Gitmo and his lack of hubris.
Frankly I would support an extended effort if the politics of attempting to rationalize previous poor decisions was discarded, transparency focused on those bad policies and the detriment to national security, and an honest discussion versus a political one on the challenges that lie ahead.
Soundbites, and distortions do not a policy make.
Again let me reiterate, now that we have a reality based Sec Def, the BS from the same group that got us in this mess is not helpful.
It is as if the current Sec Def learned something by running both the CIA and a Unniversity.
At least Gates is not “wildly off the mark.”
You would think that Jr. and Dick would defer to his request to close Gitmo, give him the additonal troops, and then focus on averting a humanitarian crisis instead of making up imaginary adversaries in Iraq.
I would have hoped Jr. would have desisted from irritating the public and congress and focused on what needs to be done and dropping the political crap.
Only Bush’s natural opposition is “irritated” by Bush, and they’d be irritated no matter what he did short of surrender to them.
Neither Gates nor anyone else has a plan for Gitmo prisoners. Short of “kangaroo cort” military tribunals and mass executions, it’s about the best of all bad alternatives. If you have a better solution, lets hear it.
You are either trying to pick a fight, or you are extremely uniformed about not only the history of this war, but the roles of the President's Cabinet, so let me help you.
First of all, the SecDef does not make policy, he executes the orders of the President of the United States, he may make suggestions to the President, but he serves at his pleasure and the first time that Gates steps outside of the Administration's plan for success, he will be updating his resume.
The next thing that needs to be address is that the left has been able to make the simple minded in this country forget why we went to war in Iraq. So please, let me remind those who forgot. WE DID NOT GO TO WAR OVER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Saddam had been giving us, and the rest of the world enough reasons to restart hostilities due to his failure to comply to the 1991 cease fire agreement. However, we continued to allow misguided diplomacy to continue while occasionally tossing a couple of Cruise Missiles into his back yard, mainly, because Bill Clinton lacked the will to enforce the cease fire agreement. Saddam saw that as weakness to stand up to him so he took advantage of it by thwarting the UN inspectors, violating the no-fly zones and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. After 9/11, this Country,and our Allies, came to the conclusion that we could not afford to have anyone defy the will of the Free World. Our enemies had to fear the might of our military or we would not be safe. Saddam continued to thumb his nose at us, so we made him pay for his mistake. That preemptive policy was the right thing to do and it worked so well that Libya couldn't pack up their weapons and make nice with us fast enough.
Now, unfortunately, the Left's overwhelming lust for power has undone all of that. They have convinced people like you that Bush is an idiot and what is worse, has convinced our enemies that we do not have the will to stand up to evil or enforce our foreign policy. AQ now believes they will win so long as they hang on and kill as many people as possible that we and our allies will run home and with this game the left is playing with the war funding is breathing life into the almost defeated terrorist. We also have the nutjob in Iran who now believe he can do whatever he wants without consequence. So now, thanks to the left and the people like you that they have used to grab power, more Americans are going to die. More are going to die in Iraq, in Afghanistan and eventually in a conflict with Iran.
So the next time you feel outrage about the deaths of " the poor American Soldiers", stop blaming Bush and ask yourself what part you played whenever you opened you mouth to speak ill of their Commander and Chief. If you people really believe you support the troops but not the war, then shut the F&*K UP and let them win and come home.
You’re not processing reasonably, making absurd accusations, much like your opening comment.
Virtually any proper goal can be “consistent” with those of evil people. But it’s a collapse of clear thinking to then transfer the evil motives, influences or alliances from one to another simply because they share some concern. Notice my criticism has been restricted to those lampooning compassion for livestock, or your case to those insulting someone who expresses concern for it. But in your apparently defensive fuzzy thinking state, you want to accuse me of indicting all veal eaters. Nonsense.
Excuse me for taking offense at your accusation that I’m a peta dupe, and then denying you “said anything insulting”. I must really be hyper-sensitive to be abrupt with you following that…
There’s no point in continuing this.
fair enough: On Gitmo, set a limited time for interogation, say two weeks before actionable intel can decay, then give these people a public trial.
on ticking bomb scenarios, have the Sr. officer present apply coercive techniques and then stand forward for jury nullification for the act, a high bar to be sure...
The intel that put them there would likely not be admissible by US standards, especially without exposing it to the degree that our intel sources, methods and weaknesses were compromised. It might even be better to just let them all free to kill again than to expose all that on hundreds of public trials, aggressively defended by all those who want to see them walk through a public venue to promote their cause.
As a republican I feel that they AIPAC should stand trial along with the detained foreign fighters and have their day in public court.
And finally the claim of classified info is often a means to prevent embarrassment or policy decisions well beyond the shelf-life of actionable intel.
I believe that Franklin/AIPAC Spy Scandal defendants deserve that fair trial as well as detainees.
I see a double standard where the 5th amendment is OK for a political appointee in some peoples eyes, waaterboarding for others, and the claim of classified evidence manipulated as a procesutorial tool and a defendants tool when traditional and before JR these were not issues.
The trite talking points of Jr’s failed policy become more evident each day.
The minimalist court arguments and the traditionalist court arguments are often at odds, it just took Jr, Gonzo, John Yoo, and Dick to pervert the longstanding body of law to make us look like a banana republic.
The “double standard” has always existed for not applying US constitutional rights to combatants on foreign soil. The jurisdiction of US constitutional right are by definition restricted to the US. And terrorists have never qualified for Geneva Convention rights when not part of a military force or when disguised as civilians. That’s for the protection of the civilians.
You’ve said nothing consistent with Republicans since joining FR. There’s no point in continuing this conversation within the framework of your claim that you’re a republican. I frequently debate people on the left, but not dishonest people – a total waste of time. Good luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.