« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Analysis: "Surge" Far Larger Than 20,000 Troops
A analysis released today by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the administration, in its public comments, has vastly underestimated the actual number of extra troops that will be deployed to Iraq under the president's "surge" plan.
The administration's estimate of approximately 21,000 extra troops only counts combat units, according to the analysis, and because combat units require support forces, the actual number of additional troops who will be in Iraq will likely exceed 35,000.
From the analysis (you can read it here):
To reflect some of the uncertainty about the number of support troops, CBO developed its estimates on the basis of two alternative assumptions. In one scenario, CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq. That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops—a total of 48,000. CBO also presents an alternative scenario that would include a smaller number of support personnel—about 3,000 per combat brigade—totaling about 15,000 support personnel and bringing the total additional forces to about 35,000. [emphasis mine]
The analysis, which estimated the cost of the president's plan "from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment," was sent to House Committee on the Budget Chairman John Spratt (D-SC) today.
Update: A statement out from Spratt says that the administration, in an estimate given to Congress, gave a cost far below (about $3 billion) the actual one:
According to CBO, these additional troop deployments will cost between $7 billion and $10 billion this year alone, $4 billion to $7 billion more than the Administration’s estimate. Total cost of the troop increase could range between $9 billion and $49 billion, which reflects the costs of a four-month and a 24-month troop increase.
Comments (50)
hellskitchen wrote on February 1, 2007 12:53 PM:Underestimated or lied?
ulla wrote on February 1, 2007 1:14 PM:This is so typical of the Bush administration. Now is this a half-truth or a half-lie?
Drew32 wrote on February 1, 2007 1:16 PM:I'm willing to question the President's honesty as much as the next guy but I seem to recall him talking about "21,500 combat personnel" a lot of the time which would seem to let him off the hook.
adam wrote on February 1, 2007 1:17 PM:The surge idea is bad on its face simply because it's not the right tactic to achieve any realistic or worthy goal. That said, to me the surge seems an easier sell if we send more troops, not less. So it's odd to me that they'd intentionally understate it. I'd think they'd amp up the numbers to give hope that it might work. This seems like the stem cell policy to me - appease the warmongers by sending more troops, but not so many as to upset the majority who just want out. Classic Bush either way you cut it.
Robert wrote on February 1, 2007 1:17 PM:A troop is a troop is a troop - regardless if they are infantry or a truck diver - if the White House is playing word games with the word "troop" this is really a shame.
lyle wrote on February 1, 2007 1:17 PM:i have a feeling, if i remember right, that this is the same thing that happened with vietnam, wasn't it? that the pro escalation government officials would state particular numbers that only involved combat troops, while leaving out the support numbers (which are always exponentially larger than combat forces in the first place).
the funny thing is, if you're surprised by this, what ship have you been sailing on for the last six years?
jeffgee wrote on February 1, 2007 1:17 PM:Neocon chickenhawk tough-guy Mike Ledeen says that the personnel at the FOBs should be fighting the insurgents along with the combat troops, that they have cushy jobs hanging out at the fine amenities set up there in the safety of the bases and that we could win the war if they were out in the field.
mbbsdphil wrote on February 1, 2007 1:18 PM:I guess he missed the lecture about how many support personnel it takes to wage a war. Ask the Fobbits how they like being stuck in the sandbox for an indefinite period of time. Maybe they're not dodging bullets and IEDs but they are still trapped in Iraq with no end in sight and will be involved in a larger war with Iran as soon as Bush can find an excuse to start bombing.
Surely, several Congressional committees will immediately ask the president to verify the total number of service personnel deployed to Iraq - and neighboring countries and Afghanistan, to limit the fudge factor - and the total number of "contractors", that is, mercenaries and their support personnel.
Last I heard, the ratio of mercenaries to government troops was about 2:3. Sounds like the proverbial West African dictatorship or the film of a bad novel starring Richard Harris and Richard Burton.
One of the early concerns was that Bush was not "sending" very many new troops, that he was extending the deployment of troops already there because we had so few rested, equiped and available. So what's the composition now? Where are they coming from. If Reserve or Guard units, why aren't state governors in the press about not having resources to fend off disasters owing to storms, winter and spring floods.
This administration has long used jesuitical constructs that deceive without lying. Congress owes it no consideration. Mr. Cheney has always fougtt bare-knuckled. Time for Congress to exchange the kid gloves for 8 ounce ones.
mbbsdphil wrote on February 1, 2007 1:26 PM:Incursions into Cambodia and Laos didn't help Mr. Nixon, and they got a lot of boys killed. They were also illegal and clandestine, so records were falsified and remains went unrecovered. Presumably, the incursions were paid for by lying, too.
It seems Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are figuratively at war with their own people rather than a credible enemy. Quite a price to pay for their unwillingness to be caught being wrong.
Congress! Spit in the bucket, bite down on the mouthguard, and get in the ring! You can't prevail if you're not willing to take a punch.
LMichael wrote on February 1, 2007 1:26 PM:And how many additional contractors will it
MNPundit wrote on February 1, 2007 1:26 PM:entail as well?
Are we seriously at 1.2 Support Troops for every 1 Combat Troop?
That ration is mind-blowing considering the demands of high technology. Wow. Kudos to the army if Bush is not just short-changing them again. Still it's good to clarify this, because when calling for 300,000 troops I think most mean it as COMBAT troops, and currently when we say we have 130,000 troops in Iraq that includes BOTH support and combat troops.
Ronald wrote on February 1, 2007 1:26 PM:Thats IT. After this bit of news today, the postponement of info on Iranian involvment in Iraq and the Blatant lies about believing we needed a change in October????
RudyTahuti wrote on February 1, 2007 1:34 PM:I have never been a huge supporter of impeachment largely of fear of Cheney but I'm convinced nothing short of impeachment of this President and CONVICTION of this Vice President is clearly warranted. It's time to put the niceness aside and end this chaos before this Country is completely trashed by these Traitors!
Combat troups or support, they're all targets in that environment.
Blader wrote on February 1, 2007 1:36 PM:"So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad"
--Shrub, Jan 10, 2007
It's a half lie. IMO
He could have said "40,000 additional troops, half of whom--five combat brigades--will be deployed to Baghdad.
20,000 just seems like a smaller fraction of the 130,000 that are already in theater.
beowulf wrote on February 1, 2007 1:40 PM:"Are we seriously at 1.2 Support Troops for every 1 Combat Troop?"
Its worse than that. A lot of jobs that have traditionally been done by support troops (running truck convoys, base security, kitchen patrol) are now done by contractors. Add these contractors to the uniformed support troops and your support to combat ratio will be much higher.
mary ellen meli wrote on February 1, 2007 1:41 PM:Bottom line is this. Anyone, including those self serving members of Congress, who believes a single word that anyone affiliated with this administration says, should click their heels three times. Frankly, I think it's too late.
Dennis wrote on February 1, 2007 1:47 PM:We will be at war with Iran within weeks.
All of these plans were on the table before 9/11, Iraq,Iran, and Syria. Afghanistan was just a distratcion, something they had to do after 9/11.
Clearly, not a priority with these guys, as proven by the resurgence of the Taliban and Osama drinking pina coladas somewhere.
If Congress let's Bush get away with this, the whole damned body ought to be impeached! I don't usually talk like this, but this is the sorriest goddamned Congress this nation has ever had.
As the late and beloved Molly Ivins said in her last column; "We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, "Stop it, now!"
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
ww wrote on February 1, 2007 1:56 PM:Did you call your Senators and Congressional Representive today to tell them how you feel?
Do it.
Unmitigated Audacity wrote on February 1, 2007 2:01 PM:Oppose the surge? Yes. Call out their lies? Yes. But the surge is just a feint. Look at the MSM. Iran is everywhere. We are in the midst of a hude propaganda offensive to pave the way for an attack on Iran. Josh's post from earlier today is right on the mark. The only way to stop it is to nail Cheney to the wall. It appears that people behind the scenes are working towards this, but much too slowly. Cheney is at the center of the nest of vipers in the Admin who want to widen the war. Dems and Hegelian Repubs - get off your ass, quit making nicey nicey. Stop this bastard now before the world is in flames and the economy is kaput. Time to go after Cheney with all you got. Waiting for '08 is suicide.
Libby wrote on February 1, 2007 2:06 PM:This is a question that any Senator (and reporter for that matter) worth his salt and savvy on military matters would/should have asked: Does the 21,500 number reflect combat AND support troops ??? They should know that their is a ratio for combat/support forces & with the history of this administration's veracity and word parsing, questions like these just can't go unasked !!!
nofltwlt wrote on February 1, 2007 2:07 PM:Bush cannot be trusted. Impeach him now before it is too late.
Mooser wrote on February 1, 2007 2:20 PM:Just wait til you see the lines in front of the recruiting offices when Bush goes to war with Iran.
Thousands of men and women, all demanding they skip all that training and get into the fray RIGHT NOW!!!
And they will all bring their own body armor, guns, ammo and Hummers!
Little Georgie needs bailin out, Ma! So I'm on my way! Tell Uncle Bob to start wittlin' me a new leg now, if he hasn't gone hisself.
TheraP wrote on February 1, 2007 2:29 PM:Does anyone else recall being "sold" this surge of only 21,500 (combat) troops, since the support system was already in place?
I recall something like that - maybe from bush himself. And I recall feeling suspicious even as I heard it (or read it).
Something is very fishy - but the smell is the same as all the fishy stuff that has come before.
phil wrote on February 1, 2007 3:00 PM:If he said "combat personnel", then presumably he is now including the Navy. Not a lot of use in Baghdad.
NOTR wrote on February 1, 2007 3:13 PM:Here is what he said in his 10 Jan address:
"So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
Thucydides Jr. wrote on February 1, 2007 3:38 PM:The Senate needs to step up, and step up now. For all their posturing, they are the enablers here. No non-binding resolutions, no but-we're-supposed-to-be-the-reflective-house, no chummy with each other kindness. This needs to be stopped. Not just the surge. How many times are they gonna be conned and boxed into a corner and go along with this administration? Iraq - Warrantless Wiretaps - Habeas Corpus - now escalation & Iran? The Senate has failed, both sides, each time in the past.
When will they finally stop being the enablers?
ApplePie wrote on February 1, 2007 3:42 PM:WOW George W. Bush is telling lies???!!! What a shock! Soon you will see him use his phoney Texas cowboy swagger, as he walks up to the microphone, to announce he has just invaded and bombed Iran. He is not just the worst & most incompetent president in US history - he is a menace to our safety.
Matt wrote on February 1, 2007 3:52 PM:This isn't news... There's been an ongoing debate in the conservative blogs (most notably The Corner) about whether this plan was consistent with the Kagan/AEI plan.
Lowry said yes: "Kagan's plan called for 5 brigades - counting support personnel, that's 35,000-40,000 troops. Bush's plan also calls for 5 brigades. Even though he only mentions 20,000 COMBAT troops, his plan means that 35,000-40,000 additional troups will be sent to Iraq."
This isn't news.
Alana wrote on February 1, 2007 4:27 PM:Now y'all know that we can't impeach Bush and prosecute Cheney - that would leave a WOMAN as president and the world would come to an end!
Aaaargh wrote on February 1, 2007 4:59 PM:This just makes it clearer than ever that the "surge" is just cover to get the invasion force for Iran on the ground.
John Wilheim wrote on February 1, 2007 5:10 PM:So, the CBO says the escalation (note -- NOT "surge!") will be double the original 21,500, or even more. But General Casey testified today he will need only 2 of the 5 brigades originally proposed.
Cugel wrote on February 1, 2007 6:42 PM:And this is the administration that always speaks with one voice, in which the grownups are in charge, in which the trains always run on time?!?
Do We Really Want to Invade Cambodia Again?
Richard Nixon was losing in Vietnam, so he decided to up the ante by invading Cambodia.
Of course it was a bigger disaster. But, from his perspective what's to lose?
If you can't admit your own policies have been a total fiasco, then what's the alternative? The Iranians are undermining us!
Those dastards!
Amber wrote on February 3, 2007 1:12 PM:I love you!!!!
Melvin wrote on February 3, 2007 4:09 PM:How old are you?
Jalen wrote on February 3, 2007 4:13 PM::) good!!!
Anonymous wrote on February 6, 2007 8:51 AM:llm;k
catarina@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 7:12 PM:graph of penis size
andrey@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:05 AM:Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis
suse@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 5:06 AM:hello
suse@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 5:07 AM:hello
poll@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 4:55 PM:hello
Tristian Law wrote on May 21, 2007 7:50 AM:Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...
Tristian Law wrote on May 21, 2007 7:50 AM:Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...
Ryder Salcedo wrote on May 21, 2007 8:28 AM:William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...
Carter England wrote on May 22, 2007 1:40 PM:Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy.
Carter England wrote on May 22, 2007 1:43 PM:Madonna says she may adopt another child from abroad following her proposed adoption of a Malawian boy.
Keaton Dorsey wrote on May 22, 2007 4:46 PM:Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron.
Keaton Dorsey wrote on May 22, 2007 4:47 PM:Jonathan Ross is dubbed "risque" by Ofcom but not in breach of rules over an interview with David Cameron.
larra@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 8:22 PM:buy viagra
larra@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 8:22 PM:buy viagra