Sunday, March 11, 2007
Iraq: is this still just a troop 'surge'?
Image courtesy Guardian
Announced yesterday:
"President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring. [emphasis added]"
From "Bush Seeks 8,200 More Troops For Wars" - click here for more.
Related:
From a couple weeks ago:
"Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.
Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq. [emphasis added]"
Click here for more from "2 Army units will forgo desert training."
Meanwhile:
"The US army is lagging behind Iraq's insurgents tactically in a war that senior officers say is the biggest challenge since Korea 50 years ago.Click here for more from the Guardian article "'Smart' rebels outstrip US."
Top American generals make shock admission as Iraq leader pleads with neighbouring countries to seal off their borders."
General Eaton: “The Republican Congress is the worst thing that’s happened to US Army and Marine Corps” - I couldn't agree more....
Labels: Iraq war, War on Terror
Tweet
