14,000 National Guard Troops May Be Sent To Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:32:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Pentagon is notifying 14,000 National Guard troops they may be heading to Iraq.

The Pentagon has identified some 14,000 National Guard soldiers who may go to Iraq as part of planning for deployments stretching as far as 2010, a senior U.S. defense official said on Friday.

Some of the Guard soldiers, part of the U.S. military's reserve component, may face deployment far sooner than the Pentagon's goal of five years at home for every year they are mobilized, the official said.

This is in addition to the redeployment of 4,500 active troops announced earlier this week.

More...

On Monday, the Pentagon said it would send about 4,500 active duty troops to Iraq before they had spent even a year back at home. The Pentagon's goal for active-duty troops is two years at home for every one year deployed.

Sen. Harry Reid points out,

....the Guard would be less prepared for emergencies at home. "Our military is stretched too thin and our troops are returning to combat too soon and with too little training," Reid said in a statement.

The Pentagon responds,

"When we are a nation at war we might not always be able to make those policy goals that we have for ourselves," the senior defense official said.

There are now 145,000 troops in Iraq.

< It's Official: McCain Will Fight To the End In Iraq . . . Now Likely GOP Nominee | State-Sponsored Suicide? >

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.

14,000 National Guard Troops May Be Sent To Iraq | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It is spring now, in the west, where the aspens (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by jerry on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:16:09 AM EST

It is spring now ... Out West, where I live, the aspens will already be burning. They burn in clusters, because the hills and wind connect them.

Our governor says that we depend on the National Guard and its aircraft and equipment to fight these fires.

Moma!!! What will we do? (1.00 / 1) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:40:27 PM EST

My advice is to start relying on yourself and your neighhbors. Volunteer Fire Departments are an old and honorable tradition.

[ Parent ]

Volunteer fire departments do aerial firefighting? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by roy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:41:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]

roy, anything for you and jerry (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:05:56 PM EST

is not enough

;-)

[ Parent ]

Wildfires that consume 100s of acres (none / 0) (#30)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 01:53:00 PM EST

of forest takes more organization that neighbors working together in a bucket brigade.

You have the common sense to realize that, PPJ.

Your lack of concern for your fellow Americans in drought-stricken regions of the West show your claim to be a social liberal nothing more than claptrap.

[ Parent ]

DA (1.00 / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 02:15:22 PM EST

Yadda yadda yadda....

[ Parent ]

: That's the clear-headed (none / 0) (#34)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 02:40:48 PM EST

logical, in-command-of-the-facts response we've come to expect from you here, PPJ.
Ta!

[ Parent ]

Not (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by Wile ECoyote on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 02:51:26 PM EST

to worry. The Herks set up for water drops do not go to Iraq.

[ Parent ]

More meat for the grinder (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Dadler on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:54:19 AM EST

And a nation that doesn't give a sh*t about its soldiers continues the path of folly and failure.

Jarober,
There is no declaration of war. There was a congressional authorization to use force built on lies and misinformation and raw stupidity. That is not a congressionally authorized war. Or does truth actually mean nothing to you? The Though some of us, those of us who have been right about this all along and continue to be, marched against it and warned it would be a disaster. Too bad this administration only wants to hear from those people who have been wrong about this all along.

Name a single thing this administration has been right about in Iraq. Shock and Awe would work? We'll be welcomed as liberators? The insurgency is in its last troes? Etc., Etc., Etc.

Hell, I just read today that we hit a bunch of Shiite militiamen. They were probably using arms the American government has generously spread around to our and Iran's common allies.

Do you have any concept of the Orwellian lunacy your government is foisting on you?

Pathetic.

: Does this mean.... (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:45:47 PM EST

Do you have any concept of the Orwellian lunacy your government is foisting on you?

that you have left us?
Say it aint so, Joe....

[ Parent ]

Iraq War (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Saul on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:23:53 PM EST

The Hypocrisy of It All

History will show that this, president and vice president, will be go down in the annals of American presidents as the worst president and vice president in history of the United States. The Iraq war was based on manufactured evidence and deliberate lies from the get go from this administration. This administration took advantage of the 911 crisis and the lynch mob mentality that the people were in at the time and fabricated the Iraq connection to 911. They also took advantage that it was a midterm election year, and any Congressman or Senator not favoring going to war would be considered unpatriotic which could make the difference of being elected or not. It was an easy sell to the American people and the Congress. One of the goals in Iraq was to bring Jeffersonian democracy to their government. Many Iraqis are now saying, "We do not understand this Jeffersonian Democracy you talk about". Do you mean like the recent 06 November election you had in the United States where the majority of your people voted for the democrats on the basis of ending the Iraq war? However, your president said, I don't care what 65 percent of the American people want I will continue with this war even if the only supporters left are my wife and my dog Barney. Do you mean like the Baker-Hamilton Commission that told your president that the current course in the management of the war was no longer viable and that major changes had to be made to include using diplomacy with the adjacent countries? However, your president said I heard the commission's recommendation but I chose not to follow them and we will do it my way. Do you mean like the military supplemental spending bill that both houses of your government passed with conditions of a timeline to end this war because of the mandate the people gave your Congress to end this war, along with your generals who agree that the only solutions to this war is a political solution and not a military solution? However, your president said, I will veto this bill if it has a timeline to end the war and I am requesting a surge of more troops. "No we do not understand what new type of government you are talking about. We already had this type of government and president. Our government was a dictatorship and its ruler was Saddam Hussein."

: Puleaseeeeee (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:54:16 PM EST

The Iraqis are saying they don't understand:
"Jeffersonian Democracy?"
How about Jacksonian?? Chicagoian? Bostonian??
BTW - Please, please, please. Stop with the "mandate" nonsense. Our government is a constitutional republic, we do not have a parliment.

[ Parent ]

Looks Like (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:13:40 PM EST

Looks like he is on the same page as Rudy.

Does Bush Support Our Troops? (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by john horse on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:08:34 PM EST

Time magazine has a cover story on how Bush is systematically destroying our Army. I urge everyone to read this article. I don't see how you can read it and not come to the conclusion that Bush's support for the troops is as deep as the depth of a bumper sticker based on the way he is using and abusing our men and women in uniform.

Hmm (1.00 / 1) (#2)
by jarober on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:42:12 AM EST

It's almost as if it's a Congressionally authorized war, or something. Leave it to the left to be continually stunned by that.

Okay (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:47:17 AM EST

So let's send them all. Every single one. Everyone who is now, or can still fit, in a uniform. And leave them till the war is done.

Or do you not have the stomach to see things through?

[ Parent ]

Works for me. (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 01:42:39 PM EST

If you will agree to a total war and an unconditional surrender requirement.

[ Parent ]

Who exactly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Al on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:05:09 PM EST

would be doing the surrendering?

[ Parent ]

Glad you asked (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:07:19 PM EST

The terrorists who don't show up.

[ Parent ]

How will we know them (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 04:15:33 PM EST

if they do show up? What exactly is it that will define them as the terrorists, a uniform? a tattoo? the mark of the beast? Who are these terrorists you always blabber about but can never really define? What a bill of goods you have chosen to buy. The people who buy into all this were paranoid to begin with and this puts a real world picture to their internal paranoia and feels factual to them even without facts.

[ Parent ]

Tracy, to complex, eh? (1.00 / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:21:13 PM EST

Ah, I should have known it was to complicated...

You see Tracy, if we win, they won't show up.

If they show up.... well, maybe you now get the point.

[ Parent ]

All's quiet..... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 10:34:00 AM EST

on the Eastern front my friend, no fleets on the horizon, no squadrons in route.

No activity on the Northeastern land border. Can anyone report on the South, West, Northwest?

: As was true on 9/10/01 (1.00 / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 02:17:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]

you don't live (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Jen M on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:47:36 AM EST

anywhere near where forest fires are an anual problem. Obviously.

[ Parent ]

It doesn't count ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Sailor on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:00:40 PM EST

... when it's founded on a lie:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

None of those were true, they were deliberate lies by the admin.

[ Parent ]

Nice Spin PPJ (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 07:59:46 PM EST

How about some numbers rather than videotic vitriolic opinion to back up your fantasty claim.

Waiting......but I sure won't hold my breath.

How about you tell us (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:24:12 PM EST

what you will put on the table to keep the terrorists at bay for a few years....

[ Parent ]

See Above Answer (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:11:41 PM EST

And leave my first born son out of it.

[ Parent ]

: Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 08, 2007 at 02:21:37 PM EST

You can't answer because you haven't thought through what will be the cost of trying to live with the terrorists.

[ Parent ]