WASHINGTON, April 4, 2008
New Plan Will Shorten Army Combat Tours
Administration Expects To Reduce Soldiers' Tours Of Duty From 15 To 12 Months This Summer
-
Photo
Soldiers of the U.S. and Iraqi Army distribute food and humanitarian supplies among people in the Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad, April. 4, 2008. Sadr city is suffering a lack of basic supplies as a result of the curfew that was set on the district after last weeks violence. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
The decision, expected to get final, formal approval in the days ahead, comes as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, prepares to deliver a progress report to Congress next week on the improved security situation there. He is also expected to make recommendations for future troop levels.
A senior administration official said Friday that plans are to deploy soldiers for 12 months, then give them 12 months rest time at home. Exactly which units would be affected is not yet clear. The official spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.
The move to shorter deployments has been pushed by Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, as a way to reduce the strain on troops battered by long and repeated tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that goal has been hindered by the ongoing security demands in Iraq.
Officials have been publicly tightlipped in recent days about the move to reduce the tours. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday he expected a decision by President Bush "fairly soon" on the Army's proposal. But he also cautioned that cutting troops' time on the battlefront will impose limits on what the military can do in the future.
"So I think the bottom line is, we're all still looking at that. But I think we'll have a better idea of what we think we can do, what we ought to do, in the fairly near future," Gates told reporters Friday.
What the future holds for troops in Iraq will become clearer when Petraeus goes before congressional committees Tuesday.
Petraeus is expected to lay out his proposal for a pause in troop cuts after July when the last of the five additional brigades ordered to Iraq last year have come home. And he will likely tell lawmakers how many more troops could be withdrawn this year, as long as conditions in Iraq remained stable.
His presentation will include statistics reflecting the reduction in violence over the past seven months, but it will also note the latest spike in fighting in Basra, as Iraqi security forces took on Shiite militias, and the attacks that stretched out into Baghdad.
Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, are expected to tout political advancements by the Iraqis, although they will note that much more needs to be done.
Fast Fact
Officials said Friday that the Army proposal to reduce tours is on track. Top military leaders made it clear to Bush in a closed-door meeting late last month that they are worried about the war's growing strain on troops and their families.There are now 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including 18 combat brigades - down from a peak of 20 brigades for much of the past year.
Gates made the decision to extend deployments to 15 months last year, because that was the only way the Army could provide enough troops for the Bush-ordered military buildup aimed at quelling the violence in Baghdad.
Ever since, Gates, Casey and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said they want to go back to 12 months tours as soon as possible.
There are now 158,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including 18 combat brigades - down from a peak of 20 brigades for much of the past year. By the end of July, military leaders have said those numbers would fall to 140,000 troops, including 15 combat brigades.
Casey has said he could reduce combat tours if the demands on the Army were cut back to a total of 15 brigades in the war zone. At the end of July there would be 13 in Iraq - along with two Marine units - and two Army brigades in Afghanistan.
In a related move Friday, Democrats signaled that they don't see much hope in ending the Iraq war this year so long as Bush insists U.S. troops remain committed there in large numbers.
Still, party leaders wrote to Bush on Friday to tell him it's not too late to change course and plead with him not to leave the war for the next president to handle.
"We are deeply concerned that you and the congressional Republican leadership are intent on staying the current course throughout your administration and then handing the Iraq war off to future presidents," the Democrats wrote.
Others said they hope to see continued efforts to force troop withdrawals, but they acknowledged they were unlikely to succeed.
"I expect most of our troops to still be there" come the end of the year, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
"Until there's either a big enough majority in the Senate or a change in the president's (approach), I don't see a significant improvement, situation improvement in Iraq," Levin said in a conference call with reporters.
Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, predicted in the same conference call that the situation in Iraq will grow considerably worse by September "because the administration seems to have no political game plan."
Since Democrats lack a veto-proof majority, they have repeatedly failed to force Bush to accept any anti-war legislation, including one measure supported by many Republicans that would have required that troops spend more time at home between combat tours.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 134 CommentsRe: "New Plan Will Shorten Army Combat Tours"
I have an alternate plan.
REFUSE!!!
Risking a few months in jail on the side of humanity is a small price to pay in exchange for your dignity and self respect.
Do not allow yourselves to be used by the regime, fighting their lie-based, fascistic wars for profit, and disgracing yourselves and your country in the process!
www.ivaw.org
www.couragetoresist.org
GI Rights Hotline
877-447-4487
http://girightshotline.org
###
"Do not fight for a dying regime. It is not worth your life."- GWB
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxKpeKQA6B4
Admiral Fallon once said of Gen. David Betraeus,
"...that he considered him to be %u201Can ***-kissing little chickensh*t%u201D and added, %u201CI hate people like that%u201D.
Who could possibly contest this reality?
"Our troops" have no business in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Both undeclared abominations were planned well ahead of 9/11/01, are based solely on lies and hype, and have resulted only in death and misery to the people of those countries.
What remains of paramount importance, is getting the Bush regime members, and their accomplices, before a war crimes tribunal, gallows, firing squad, etc.
Re: "A senior administration official said Friday that plans are to deploy soldiers for 12 months, then give them 12 months rest time at home."
Whether Hillary, Obama, or McCain come to power, just how many more years or decades do we plan to continue the lie-based, self-defeating, mass-murderous crusade?
Let me add one other stat. As best as my research comes up with is that just over one percent of the population of the U.S. has served in the military. And one out of every four homeless person is a vet. Now that means that one percent of the population makes up twenty five percent of the homeless.
The combat tours will shorten, with the violence escalating, but i am certain there is no political reason to continue the drawdown in the wake of the increasing violence. shrub keeps telling us he will not make troup decisions based on politics, so it must not be.
but we are going to send 30,000 more troups to Afghanistan. You know, that place we invaded after 9/11 to get bin ladden. and then we left the battle to our allies, so we could go after saddam, the guy that suposedly had all of these wmd''s that were such an imminnent threat. thats right, shrub told us then that he did not care about bin ladden at the time, the guy who was really resposible for 9/11.
could it be that with this shift in troups that the adminstration is actually acknowledging the fact the the real battle with alqueada is indeed in afghanistan and like it or not, we do not have the military power to police iraq. with the comming election, they might even be able to score some political points, and actully hold up bin laddens decapitaed skull as proof the war on terror is working, just in time for november.....
is is possible that shrub is acually smarter than we give hime credit for?
he has proven that he can manipulate the media to convince the country to support an illegal invasion and incompetent war planning. can he do it one more time for a third term?(McCain)
My God have mercy on us all....
has shrub actually realized that the biggest threat this country is curently facing is the economy, not terrorism? the war is banrupting this country, just like bin ladden wanted. just like he did to the USSR in afghanistan.
we will be paying for this disaster for generations to come. remeber how after the USSR broke up the different countries erupted into civil war (ukrane) and poverty set in for 20+ years. history repeats itself. this might even be the start of the break up of the united states. we have never been so devided as we are right now.
I think Obama can reunite us. there is hope.
If McCain is elected, there is no hope other than civil war.
If Hillary is elected, the war may end, but the political divisions along party lines will continue.
Thanks for your information. I was in the Air Force from 65 until 69. I did not go to Viet Nam even though I was aviable for deployment.
That is hearbreaking to put it mildly. I to now wonder how many names on the Viet Nam Wall meet their fate because of this 10 Months - 5 Day''s rule.
I didn''t even know this rule existed. I graduated from high school in 1962 and some of my graduating class went to Viet Nam, but know one informed me that this rule existed. They probaly didn''t even want to talk about it.
I personaly am very fortunate to receive medical health benefits at the VA hospital in Salem VA and go to their exercise room on Tuesday and Thursday on a regular basis.
Hope all is going well for you and your fellow band of brothers.
Chicken hawks never serve!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for as they are concerned you are cannon fodder.
The wars are always fought by the poor and minorities, the politicians are not losing many votes if they don''t take care of us. They just don''t care.
we could cut the tours to zero
NOT ONE MORE DAY!
NOT ONE MORE DAY!
Posted by piercetheval
if our poor country was not being administered by a bunch of greed driven republiCON morons we could cut the tours to zero
Posted by joyous88
Chicken hawks never serve!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by HHROAMS
It''s too bad that so many Americans remember Vietnam when Democrats claimed they supported the troops and then treated Vietnam Veterans like dogs when they returned. Well America does remember because we read Anti-American and Anti-Military posts like these every day that remind Americans that Democrats do not give a DAMNN about the troops. Democrats care only about their Self-Absorbed Self-Anointed Evil Hate and Angry Political Agenda. The one subject Democrats will never talk about is that McCain is polling ahead of O''Bama and Hitlery because American Voters are tired of the endless Hate America Rants of Democrats. John McCain Thanks the Angry Democrats for your support.
It hasn''t happened yet! I''ll believe it, when I see it!
These are the same guys that extended the tours! NOW, they''re going to put them back to normal?!
It''s simply a case of dodging negative credit for doing something he shouldn''t have done in the first place---and doesn''t want to be remembered for---as his administration ends and he leaves office!
First extend the tours from 12 months to 15 months - that will help.
Now reduce the tours from 15 months to 12 months - that will help.
"Moe, Larry - the cheese!! Moe, Larry - the cheese!!"
Posted by demslie at 09:44 AM : Apr 05, 2008
It''s too bad so many Americans have forgotten Nixon and his "secret" plan to end the Vietnam mess. Americans didn''t want us in Vietnam then just like Americans don''t want to be in Iraq now. Republicans don''t listen and their bottom line is profit...
Posted by demslie at 09:44 AM : Apr 05, 2008
America is sick and tired of the republicans doing everything they can to ruin this country - their failed foreign policies, failed economic policies, failed policies on NOT reforming health care, NOT reforming Social Security, etc, etc.
The republicans are hanging themselves, and they have no one to blame, BUT themselves.
Chicken hawks never serve!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by HHROAMS at 08:34 AM : Apr 05, 2008
Bush is sad and upset that he couldn''t serve in Vietnam:
"I must say, I''m a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You''re really making history, and thanks," Bush said.
He''s SSSSOOOOO Brave!!!!
Posted by trapbreak at 10:08 AM : Apr 05, 2008
So what? How does his military experience, or better yet HIS FAMILY''S military experience, make him qualified to be president?
Wouldn''t his record of years and years of a do nothing politician be much more indicitive of how he''s going to fare as a president?
Wouldn''t all of his campaign promises of inaction on the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror be a better indicator of how he''s going to be a president.
Military service means NOTHING when it comes to politics.
You forgot...JOHN SIDNEY McCAIN III: SENILE!
Posted by jamesm12341 at 10:26 AM : Apr 05, 2008
Quit crying. Military service means NOTHING when it comes to politics - NOTHING.
The Keating Five Scandal has much more to do with McCain''s political career, than his military service ever will.
So, how''s that play out with the empty suit crowd??
You bet mccain (I don''t support him for POTUS)is a war hero and the double standard of the left is sickening. No one could say a word about kerry and his bogus heroism but you idiots are demeaning and degrading mccain. You poeple are sickening and vile.
So, how''''s that play out with the empty suit crowd??
Posted by Xlib at 11:01 AM : Apr 05, 2008
Post the link.
why is an empty suit in politics suddenly an issue?
Who said Kerry was fit to president because of his Vietnam service?
I was a Howard Dean guy - I still can''t believe he lost just because he screamed, "woo Hoo!".
This time around I was an ardent Bloomberg guy, and I''m incredibly disappointed that he didn''t run.
the dark one''s, 20 minutes show sunday:
"We knew at sometime down the road that we
were going to have to fight Saddam so we
decided to fight him now so we wont have
to fight at Saddam''s choice of time and place."
This chap is supposedly an "insider" from the administration who is coming forth to reveal
the true anatomy of the invasion of Iraq.
Should be entertaining... believe it''s titled:
"Early Christmas Comes To Neocon VAlley"
(The quote''s construction has the same feel
as "We have to fight them over there so we
wont have to fight them over here.")
They like "fight". But where the real fight
starts "we" ends.
Posted by bobnjersey at 11:14 AM : Apr 05, 2008
In NY, we''ve had an empty pants suit Senator for 7 years now.
hungry1968-look it up on dogpile.com, lefty. The "reporting for duty" garbage was from your covention in Boston. Such a touching moment in our history, wasn''t it?
Posted by Xlib at 11:32 AM : Apr 05, 2008
Funny - you neglected to mention that while Kahl argues this position, "both Kahl and Obama%u2019s campaign say that the memo is unrelated to any official campaign position".
Posted by Xlib at 11:34 AM : Apr 05, 2008
What are you referring to? What am I supposed to be looking up?
During a public appearance on Saturday, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) belittled a U.S. soldier in Iraq who was following orders and wouldn%u2019t let McHenry go to the gym without the proper credentials. McHenry referred to the guard as a %u201Ctwo-bit security guard%u201C:
We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam%u2019s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early %u2014 not that I make this a great habit %u2014 but I went to the gym because I just couldn%u2019t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn%u2019t let me in. Said I didn%u2019t have the correct credentials.
It%u2019s 5:00 in the morning. I haven%u2019t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, %u201CI want to see your supervisor.%u201D Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn%u2019t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn%u2019t need to work out anyway.
AND
Enough is enough, it seems. With the NATO summit meetings consistently running two hours over schedule most of the day, President Bush abruptly got up and left the last formal session of the day, not bothering to wait for an official summit photograph of all the leaders.
"The president sat through the entire first part of the meeting, unlike some of the other world leaders who went and came as they pleased," explained a White House official, who asked not to be named. "The bulk of the discussion he felt had ended at that point. However, Secretary Gates stayed back and represented the U.S. for the duration of the meeting."
Bush was not the first leader to leave while the conversation dragged on. French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper were seen leaving before Bush did. "He wanted to get back here in order to pick up Mrs. Bush and get ready for the evening events," the White House official said. The evening events, including a cultural presentation and a dinner among the leaders, were then delayed to give everyone enough time to rest and get ready. The official photograph Bush was supposed to pose for was canceled.
http://tinyurl.com/4hqdt7
In regards to obama and troops in Iraq, so why would that memo come out of the obama camp at all if it doesn''t referr to a campaign position. I tell you, you dems sure know how to dance around issues. Why in God''s name would that memo come out at all when the empty suit keeps saying he''ll pull the troops out. Giving me a headache there, hungry.
Posted by Xlib at 12:24 PM : Apr 05, 2008
I think both Obama and Hillary have been all over the place with what they will do .
As a Senate candidate in 2004, Mr. Obama said he would support military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to rein in the mullahs'''''''' nuclear program.
"In light of the fact that we''''''''re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he told the Chicago Tribune. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... I hope it doesn''''''''t get to that point."
Mr. Obama also told the Tribune he would back American military action to secure Pakistan''''''''s nuclear arsenal if President Musharraf is overthrown by radicals.
All our generals & former Secretaries of State say start talking with Iran, We must use diplomacy -- It hasn''t been tried yet....
You have no reason to doubt, nor does anyone else that Obama wouldn''t take military action. And you should be insulted that your party leads you say those things & expect you to believe it.
You have no reason to doubt, nor does anyone else that Obama wouldn''''t take military action. And you should be insulted that your party leads you say those things & expect you to believe it.
Posted by j-whitman at 12:37 PM : Apr 05, 2008
I thought we had taken a back seat to the EU in talks with Iran, plus I thought we were going through back doors in dealing with them. I heard it said that the reason we backed of on hardballing Iran was due to them cutting back in sending munitions to Iraq.
Another thing, I have no party, I am still trying to decide who I will vote for.
One day he''s getting us out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY! Next day he doesn''t know when!
First he''s for nuclear energy, then claims he''s not and never said it.
Says he never supported NAFTA, then expands it to Peru! As it is!
Any one stance he takes, he goes back on it, once somebody else takes a different stance.
Posted by j-whitman at 12:47 PM : Apr 05, 2008
For what it''s worth, I found this among other things.
Probably like everything else, it depends who''s spin is put on it.
Fact Check : Sen. Obama%u2019s Iraq War Record
1/9/2008 2:50:08 PM
This morning, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that President Clinton "made several misleading statements about my record" on Iraq. Actually, everything President Clinton said was true:
It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he has been against the war every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time -- not once -- well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn''t know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you''re now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there is no difference in your voting record and Hillary''s ever since.
In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn%u2019t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.
%u2018When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards'' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I''m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,%u2019 Mr. Obama said. %u2018What would I have done? I don''t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.%u2019
- Whould Obama go to war if necessary ?? He has said he would, that still stands, he surrounds himself with former military generals... Think more along the lines of Reagan bro,,,, "Trust but Verify" & "Pro-Correct War"
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 134 Comments