Comments on: Bush Pauses Iraq Troop Cutbacks, Shortens Deployments

By: fester

fester — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:31:14 +0000

It's really not good news, just a diminuation of bad news. Army doctrine has a unit out of combat 2:1 compared to in-combat/deployment time as best practice and now we are moving from 1:1.3 to 1:1.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:30:24 +0000

Going to 15 months was part of how we managed to man the surge -- we kept existing people there additional months and brought others in early.

Okay, after some googling I finally found the connection. While the 15 month deployments weren't part of the original surge plan, but a consequence of it, it was projected to last only for the duration of the surge.

Still, it's good to know that our soldiers are getting some kind of good news.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:06:51 +0000

I was talking about the change back to 12 months on, 12 months off, I don't recall that being tied to the surge plans.

Going to 15 months was part of how we managed to man the surge -- we kept existing people there additional months and brought others in early.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:05:31 +0000

Keeping troops there at the pre-surge level into the next presidency is a win-win for Bush - if the next president withdraws troops and things go badly, Bush can say "I told you so" and if the next president withdraws troops and things go well, Bush can say "I told you my plan worked". There is no incentive to actually coming up with a real plan and attempting to fix the mess, well, except to save billions of dollars and more importantly service members' life and limbs.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:03:46 +0000

I think moving back to pre-Surge levels was always the plan.

I was talking about the change back to 12 months on, 12 months off, I don't recall that being tied to the surge plans.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:41:55 +0000

Wasn't just such a change proposed by congressional democrats not that long ago?

I think moving back to pre-Surge levels was always the plan.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:14:32 +0000

A page 1 report in today’s WaPo by Peter Baker and Jonathan Weisman says that this will simply be a return to pre-Surge rotation of “an equal balance of one year in the war zone followed by one year at home.”

Wasn't just such a change proposed by congressional democrats not that long ago?