I Got Them Old Deployment Blues Again, Mama
About the time you’re reading this — if you’re reading this on Saturday — the first several thousand of the troops being sent to Iraq as part of President Bush’s “surge” strategy will be deploying from Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
They include about 5,000 Army paratroopers in 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division at Bragg and about 200 Marines in the headquarters element of the 2nd Marine Logistics Group (Forward) at Lejeune.
How long they will be in Iraq is anyone’s guess because the Pentagon has been quietly — and some would say perniciously — extending tours of duty for some time now, and has accelerated these actions since the “surge” strategy was unveiled.
In one recent instance, the troops themselves heard about their extension from loved ones at home via email rather than their military commanders.
This is what happened to about 150 New Jersey National Guard troops who had been scheduled to return home in March after having served in Iraq for a year. Their tours of duty were extended for up to 125 days.
Explains the New York Times in an editorial:
“A day after Mr. Bush announced the troop increase in a televised speech, the National Guard in New Jersey told family members that their relatives would have to stay on. The news quickly made it back to the troops in Iraq through anguished phone calls and e-mail.
“Not until Sunday — four days after Mr. Bush’s speech — were the troops notified by their Army commanders, after Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey made two phone calls to Army officials.
“Mr. Corzine, who had learned of the lapse from outraged family members, said that Pentagon officials expressed regret and blamed the delay on a ‘breakdown in the chain of command on the ground in Iraq.’ The governor rightly called what happened ‘unacceptable.’
“But given all that has gone wrong with the misguided American adventure in Iraq, the foul-up is hardly surprising. It’s one more sensitive issue that has been insensitively and unfairly mishandled.”
Then there is the question of whether the number of troops being surged is indeed 21,000 as President Bush and the Pentagon have said, or whether it is much higher.
This weighty issue is playing out, among other places, in a food fight between conservative and liberal bloggers.
Greg Djerejian at Belgravia Dispatch goes way deep on the issue in a lengthy post. You might want to have a calculator handy when you read it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
22 Responses to “I Got Them Old Deployment Blues Again, Mama”
“Pentagon officials expressed regret and blamed the delay on a ‘breakdown in the chain of command on the ground in Iraq.’”
See, there’s a totally harmless explanation! What’s all that brouhaha about? Nothing to see here. SNAFU!
You hardline hawks here, don’t you experience an ice cold sensation creeping up your neck when you read official Pentagon statements like the one above?
Care to reconsider your evaluation of the chances for the surge to succeed?
Under other circumstances, I would not make a big deal about the communication breakdown.
But this is an instance where the brass was unable to get something comparatively small but politically sensitive right, and that is deeply troubling considering how they’re having such a hard time getting very big and politically sensitive stuff right.
I just want to cry sometimes . . .
These are not exact dates, but it is just a sign of the time to how long US Army soldiers were looking to be in country -
In 2002, the deployment time was six months long.
In 2004, the time was twelve months long.
Late 2006, the on-ground time was again extended. It is now fifteen months long.
ES:
Thank you. By way of historic perspective, a typical Vietnam tour was 13 month.
I’m with Nancy Pelosi. Bush made the surge decision before he made his speech. He knew from the polls (11% supporting it!) that there would be a firestorm of opposition once he officially announced his plans. This was another way to get around the Democrats and Congress.
Iowa National Guard units also found out through email and phone calls from home that their tours had been extended by at least 4 months. They were getting ready to pack up and come home. The new went as far as to say that the men were furious, not just disappointed, but furious about the whole thing.
We are already seeing adverse outcomes here in the US for having National Guard troops over in Iraq, Katrina not withstanding. The blizzards in Colorado, Kansas, and area in late December caused lots of problems. There were only 8 helicopters available for food drops for a 3 state area. That is unacceptable.
Kim,
On the other hand, if Bush had accelerated the planning and begun to deploy sooner, it would have been underway before the Democratic Congress began and they still would have been powerless to stop it unless they defunded. This is all political posturing; Pelosi knows that defunding would produce too much backlash but she’s trying to come as close to it as possible with the rhetoric condemning Bush and the surge; that’s how she plays to her base even though she knows she can’t do anything substantive.
But CS, if he had increased our involvement before the election, wouldn’t the GOP have suffered even bigger losses?Of course, I agree that this is political posturing on both sides- thats par for the course- I guess it just depends on whose politics you agree with. The Democrats know they will go down in flames in ’08 if they are seen abandoning the troops and “causing” our defeat in Iraq. That’s why it is so important to get a bipartisan coalition (GOP will be vulnerable in 2 years if we are still there) to come out against the surge. Pelosi is coming as close to the line as she can without crossing it. But the WH called her “poisonously partisan” for suggesting that’s what was happening. I think she was playing it straight with Americans.
Minor discrepancy as posted: the soldier in the photo foreground is not only wearing a non-US pattern camouflage, he is wearing the flag of the Netherlands on his right shoulder.
Kim,
I was specifically referring to your comment about the gap in timing between Bush making his decision on the surge and the speech where he officially announced it (that distinction itself is ludicrous because everyone knew that the decision had been made at least a week before the speech anyway). I’m just saying, that the lapse in time there did not have any bearing on whether or not Pelosi’s House could have debated the issue prior to the deployment of any of the surge troops. So really if she’s saying that there should be time between the president’s decision and the enactment of that decision (time for Congress to second guess him), then what she’s really saying is that the troop deployment should be held up for political reasons. That is wrong.
Similiarly, if Bush really did come to the decision to increase troops and had a plan ready prior to the elections but held it up for political reasons, that is wrong. My impression of the facts though is that he probably did make the decision that he’d increase troops if anyone could formulate a plan that addressed the tactical failures, but that the plan probably wasn’t completed until shortly before he announced it. If I’m wrong about that, if he actually could have done the surge back in Oct or Nov but held it up for political purposes, then I would condemn that.
Nelfin:
Good catch apologies. Photo subbed.
But CS, Are you saying that Congress should have no say beyond funding about the escalation of the war? It seems to me the major criticism of the 109th and previous Congresses was the blank check they handed the administration on the war with little or no oversight. They are a co-equal branch, as responsible for Iraq as Bush is. If there is no longer bipartisan support for the war in Iraq, that should be weighed heavily in decision-making. Basically Bush is saying that he must be responsive to no one but himself, when making war plans. The decision must have been made months ago- how would they carry something like that out last minute?
You’d agree that the findings of the ISG were held back because of political reasons? Rumsfeld was fired after the elections for political reasons? Most military experts see the surge itself as being a political move, because it is too small to affect the military outcome. I tend to believe that the war has been politicized from the beginning- by both sides. I live in the DC area-almost every move politicians make is made for a political reason. If Bush wanted to depoliticize the war-would he still have Karl Rove as a chief advisor?
Kim,
You and grog want Rove’s head on a platter but you already have Rumsfeld, Pace, Bolton, etc. You accuse Bush of not being willing to bend at all, but if Bush doesn’t fire 100% of the staff that you oppose, he’s not willing to bend? Who’s refusing to be bipartisan here?
And the issue of what Congress should or shouldn’t do about war policy is a dicey one. The other day I suggested that the best thing Congress could do now is to pass a resolution saying they’ll cut the funding (sans whatever is required to bring the troops home) IF Bush doesn’t hold Maliki responsible for holding up his end of things. That makes sense to me, but then someone (Marc I think?) posted a link to an anaylsis piece that showed my suggested proposal to be unconstitutional. That may or may not be true, I really don’t know. I think the constitution (and traditional use of Executive power in foreign policy) really does give broad powers to the Exec branch, and for good reason. If the security of the nation is at risk, the decisions can’t be made by consensus. That’s not to say that I think the Pres. has been correct to ignore the immense value of political capital and popular support, but I do believe that there are times when that might be necessary and I think only history will tell if this truly is one of those times.
CS- As long as Rove is around, Democrats know that the president is not serious about his approach to bipartisanship. Where do you think most of the divisive rhetoric that has characterized this debate came from ?You, yourself have condemned the rhetoric-but not the originator of the rhetoric? Remember, Rove is a student of Donald Segretti’s- Nixon’s dirty tricks man.
You fail to acknowlege that many in the GOP also wanted Rumsfeld out, not because he was polarizing, but because he was caustic, uncompromising and arrogant. He was unable to work with the military and had not produced results in Iraq. We now know that Gen Shinseki’s suggestion that we send a larger force was the correct one. Rumsfeld wanted to rely on superior technology-in the end he was wrong. Bolton was an irritant to moderates and liberals alike, and symbolized the old “unilateralist” approach. Bush invited criticism by giving him a backdoor appointment without the approval of the Senate. We may not be clear about congress’s role in wartime, but not about their “advise and consent” role in presidential appointments. Bush subverted this constitutional role by slipping Bolton in while Congress was not in session.
If you look in history it would be hard to find a president who willfully ignored the role of congress more.
I don’t favor defunding the troops, and it looks like we will be stuck there at least until ’08. But maybe that’s what Bush intended in the first place.
Kim,
I’m not saying that Rumsfeld shouldn’t have gone (I wish it would have been done before the election). But saying that more replacements are necessary strikes me as an attempt to finish castrating Bush. The Dems hold the cards now on most policy (with the exception of the war). What power does Rove have anymore anyway?
Kim: I don’t favor defunding the troops, and it looks like we will be stuck there at least until ‘08. But maybe that’s what Bush intended in the first place.
Of course that is the plan, he even said so last year. That way they can push the blame on the next President.
Rambie: one thing has to be said in that regard: the majority of commentators and of the American people – I am sure – will not fall for it. This war is considered by many to be Bush’s war and many, many people believe that Bush greatly mishandled it, etc.
CS- I don’t pity Bush. If he had changed our policy in Iraq sooner, listened to the generals and other advisors before the war, been less divisive in his rhetoric, gotten rid of Rummy sooner,etc he might not find himself where he is today. What has Rove done to bring this country together? Shouldn’t that be the goal, if we’re truly facing this dire threat?
The Dems have a thin majority- they still have to reach across the aisle, and worry about Bush’s veto, which he has already threatened. By going off on his own direction on the war and keeping Rove close by, he has indicated he’s not really interested in bipartisan compromise.
CS,
So what if it is an “attempt to finish castrating Bush”. Don’t you realize yet that he deserves it? There are currently 3000+ Americans dead in this war that still has years to go and 10 times that number wounded. Men and women suffering severe brain trauma, amputees and other serious life changing damage that used to be fatal before advances in battlefield medicine. If this war had really ever been about the security of our nation it would be one thing but it wasn’t, was it? While a case could be made that they believed the WMD rhetoric, they also had to choose to disbelieve the U.N. inspectors who as it turned out were much closer to the mark than Bush’s people. How much of that was rational thought versus an ignorant man’s gut feeling of distrust of anything the U.N. is associated with? They had to make the decision as to when to go to war in Iraq and redirect our efforts way from Afghanistan. What were they afraid would happen if we’d waited another year? Irrefutable proof that the WMDs weren’t really there anymore?
The Bush administration has supported torture and the abandonment of the Geneva Convention while refusing to call it torture in an Orwellian twist. Read up on the case of Jose Padilla and what’s been done to him, an American citizen. Look at the recent deal made with the Secret Service to rearrange things to that the visitors log to the White House can be hidden from public review.
I repeat, George Bush and everyone in his Administration deserve what they are getting and probably more besides. Anyone who wants to claim that this is simple Bush bashing can feel free to do so. And I will feel free to think of them as members of the Posterior Osculators for Bush, or POB.
Jim and Kim,
As I’ve said repeatedly, to me the question is what is best for the country, not “what does Bush deserve”.
CS- What makes you think that’s not what I want too? I really don’t care about Bush getting what he deserves, but you’d have a hard case to make if you argued that Karl Rove has done anything that is good for the country as a whole. If we need a unifier, not a divider, and we want a cooperative government, then keeping Rove, with his divide and conquer strategy. as Bush’s right hand man definitely makes no sense. Of course, imo, keeping Cheney isn’t beneficial for the country either, but he’s an elected official.
Kim,
I only meant that the way I see it, the focus on “who needs to go” isn’t what is needed right now. I made the comment about “what Bush deserves” in response to what Jim said, because he was asking if I didn’t think Bush deserves this.