'Surge' needs up to 7,000 more troops

[sabra]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-01-surge_x.htm

'Surge' needs up to 7,000 more troops

WASHINGTON — President Bush's planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England also told the Senate Budget Committee that it will be clear within months whether the so-called surge in forces has succeeded in helping secure Iraq.

"By this summer we would have a much better indication in terms of the success of the program," England said. "And so at that time we would adjust however is appropriate to do so."

In January, Bush said he would send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. England said 6,000 to 7,000 support troops will be needed to back up the larger combat force.

[Kagemusha]

1. That few?

There was some study suggesting that the ratio would be considerbly larger possibly. I figured the admin would come in a lot lower but this is a pretty low ratio.

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. Petraeus Own Handbook Recommends 120,000 For Baghdad Alone

If you do the math on troop density of at least 20 combat troops for every 1000 people in a certain area

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/JoshMarshall/011107.html

[Kagemusha]

14. True, though that's not the numbers I alluded to here

I think reply #3 quoted what I'd referred to in this particular case. But yeah, Petraeus is working with limited options.

[hobbit709]

2. Haven't we heard this before

The never-ending story. If had "50000 more troops we will win in Viet Nam' and then 50000 more and more, etc.

[babylonsister]

3. Still doesn't count the supporting troops; wasn't 48,000 the more

accurate number? Does that now make it 55,000?

[dkofos]

4. They still can't get it right can they.

[C_U_L8R]

5. or just one better president

this one is a nincompoop.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Surge needs 7000 nore? How strange ...its the same number the UK is PULLING out

and going home....

[Bucky]

16. And the Pentagon spokesman is name "England"!

More than coinkydink?

[opihimoimoi]

18. Ed Zachery

[Bucky]

19. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was quoted in the blurb (so I was close)

[hadrons]

7. 700,000 needed is more like it ....

[Supersedeas]

8. more, longer and deeper extended tours for our bravest and brightest

with less and less training to the new boots deployed there

[gratuitous]

9. Jonah Goldberg, your president needs you

Call for Buck Private Doughy Pantload! Private Pantload report for duty!

[leQ]

10. didn't i read somewhere where it's not more troops, but EQUIPMENT that our

boys need?

[Bucky]

15. Yes, more purple ink and more stamp pads will save us.

We probably could pacify Iraq if we had, say, 300,000 extra troops to throw in.

[donkeyotay]

11. I think this surge is all about buying time for the PSAs to be signed

Got to keep the pressure up to get good terms on those oil contracts.

[sakabatou]

12. The gods demand more blood

Sickening.

[newscott]

17. Reminds of Art Buchwald. Can you say "escalation?

[VegasWolf]

20. Hey Fuckin' Bush, how many more people are you going to kill for your OIL??? nt