Gates: Troops Will Serve Longer in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 07:04:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Defense secretary Robert Gates held a press conference today to announce that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will now serve up to 15 months.

Stretched thin by four years of war, the Army is adding three months to the standard yearlong tour for all active-duty soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unpopular step aimed at maintaining the troop buildup in Baghdad.

....Rather than continue to shrink the at-home intervals to a point that might compromise soldiers' preparedness for combat, Gates chose to lengthen combat tours to buy time for units newly returned from battle. ``Our forces are stretched, there's no question about that,'' Gates said.

The new policy:

More...

"Effective immediately, active army units now in the Central Command area (Iraq and Afghanistan) and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months and will return home to home station for not less than 12 months,'' said Mr Gates.

Related: Bush is having trouble finding someone to fill the new position of "war czar." Three retired generals have refused the job.

One of the four-star generals said he declined because of the chaotic way the war was being run and because Dick Cheney, the vice-president and the leading hawk in the Bush administration, retained more influence than pragmatists looking for a way out.

The unwillingness of the generals to take the job undermines recent attempts by the Bush administration to put a positive spin on the Iraq war. Mr Bush has claimed repeatedly over the past few weeks that there are signs his strategy of pouring extra US troops into Baghdad and neighbouring Anbar province is working.

< MSNBC Drops Imus Permanently | Duke Accuser: Should She Be Named Now? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Gates: Troops Will Serve Longer in Iraq and Afghanistan | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

One of my students (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Che's Lounge on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:05:43 PM EST

was off doing DOE training for medical personnel on a new fast attack sub. He's reserves now but wants to rejoin the army and be a FOB team medic. Then he can become a PA rapidly after. I was blunt but honest: "If you live. And you can't practice very effectively with one arm." He nodded knowingly. This was well before class and there was only one other student in the class, but I felt he needed a pep talk. I told the other student that I was going to make a political statement, and wanted to give her the option of stepping out before I spoke. In these days of RW academic witch hunts, I am very sensitive about voicing my political views to my students, since I am not teaching a polysci class.

Anyway, this kid (to me 24 is a kid) lost three friends and related several stories of injuries sustained by others in various ops in Iraq. IED's and RPG's. He hates the VA, and feels pulling out would mean his friends suffered and died for nothing. If I'm lyin' I'm dyin', but HE said things were more stable under Saddam.

So I got him to look me straight in the eye and told him the military mission has been a glowing success. But it ended four years ago. 6 weeks, I said, and you guys took that country. Then the politicians stepped in. I told him that he had nothing to be ashamed of. I told him how proud we all are. I told him there are tens of millions of people working every day to get them back from the occupation that the politicians have left them in.

Students started coming into class so that was it. At least I got that in. I hope he heard me.

With this announcement, George Bush is officially holding our military relatives hostage in Iraq. It's that simple. He should be impeached for imcompetence and endangering the country by unnecessarily depleting our national defenses in an undeclared guerrilla war in a nation that poses no threat to us or any country around it.

: I felt he needed a pep talk... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by desertswine on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 11:38:58 AM EST

You did well, Che.

: Che (1.00 / 3) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:37:59 AM EST

What you told him was how to lose.
Shame on you.

a fine and caring teacher (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by orionATL on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:26:10 PM EST

it takes courage to tell a young person that their special dream may not be all that well lined up with destiny.

you did what a good teacher,

or a good parent,

would have done.

orion (1.00 / 3) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:42:34 AM EST

No. It doesn't take courage. It takes a desire to push your political beliefs.


: ppj (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:37:11 AM EST

speaks from long experience.

Look out, here's another alibi. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by walt on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:33:59 AM EST

If you folks want to believe Bu$h-Cheney-Gates, go ahead & suit yourselves.

In my opinion, as soon as the first groups of 15 month & home GIs come up for rotation, pffffft! it will suddenly become necessary to shorten the home time, lengthen the in-country time & screw all the troopers all of the time. But it might keep a lid on things for a short while.

if simple incompetence (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by cpinva on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:09:17 AM EST

were legitimate grounds for impeachment, we'd have no time left for anything else. presumbly, those that voted for mr. bush knew what they were getting, a man barely able to walk and chew gum simultaneously. they got what they wanted.

however, this presents a valuable opportunity to empty the nation's prisons. clearly, this is going to have an adverse effect on recruiting and retention. time to lower standards even more, and give the nation's convicts the "chance" to serve their country.

just as long as they keep them overseas!

cpinva (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 07:41:03 AM EST

How do you explain his 1260 SAT score?


Gates extends tours ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:02:34 AM EST

... thereby killing lowering the chance of survival for all the troops involved.

BTW, provide proof that bush had a 1260, just do it on an open thread where it isn't off topic.


Here you go (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:26:02 PM EST

Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left
corner of his Yale transcript:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm
This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html
Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129.

BTW - Looks like I transposed the 0 and the 6 so you get a slobbering "you're wrong" credit.


How much did daddy warbucks endow (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:30:31 PM EST

Yale with that year?


OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:49:32 PM EST

but just this once I'll forego the open thread response to mention 4 things.

I don't see a 1260 on that transcript.
I don't see an SAT on that transcript (maybe you could point out where they are, it's kinda hard to read.)
he'd just graduated from one of the most expensive prep schools in the country, gosh, I hope he had retained something!
from his grades it looks like he's a c student.

i'd like to see actual proof (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:24:05 AM EST

of mr. bush's sat score. of course, all that really means is he's able to successfully regurgitate, not that he possesses any great facility for cognitive thought and rational analysis of facts.

we all know examples of well educated idiots.


: Yes, I do. (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:27:57 PM EST

same as me (none / 0) (#12)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:20 AM EST

we test well


if we're winning ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:57:05 AM EST

... as bush, mccain and lieberman declare then why are more soldiers being sacrificed, why are civilian deaths up and why is the military sending wounded soldiers back into battle against Dr's wishes?

Winning war. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:49:52 PM EST

The war in Iraq was won and declared so to the peasants by a monkey on a boat about six weeks after the invasion began. It has been an illegal occupation and a murderous debacle of monstrous proportions ever since.

The other war, for the minds of the peasants (the 26 percenters) was won long before the invasion began. It was short battle. The losers had so little to offer.


sailor (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:36:13 PM EST

I don't think you can say when a war is being won. It is always easy to see in the rearview mirror, but never in present, and never in the future.

For example, history shows that we were clearly winning the war in Europe in the Fall of '44, but since we didn't see it we stopped Patton and wasted momentum by trying to play defense on the supply side.

Your desire to call us a loser at all times is merely an expression of your hopes and desires.

BTW - Can you tell me how many terrorists we killed last week? Last month?

Can you tell me what information is not available?

Can you admit that its unavailability through the MSM is a huge clue as to their bias???


: ppj hates the troops... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:54:13 PM EST

... is the only explanation for someone who wants to send seriously wounded folks back into battle while at the same time claiming the military is in great shape.
And BTW, no one can tell you how many terrorists were killed lately because the US lies about it and the truth only comes out later when an investigation is forced because newsmedia havev proof.
I can tell you how many the gov't claims were killed, just like the last time you posed the question.
Are you actually that forgetfull? it was just last week.