Saturday, February 03, 2007

Bloating surge

The Commander in Chief has ordered a "surge" of 21,500 troops into Baghdad. Considering the failures of past troop increases in Iraq, many question the effectiveness this one will have calming the violence in a metropolitan area of 8-million. With a majority of Americans now wanting their country to withdraw from the war in Iraq, the "surge" is widely considered just more of the same tactics that have only led to increased violence.

Americans could be happy that at least Bush did not go into six figures for the troop increase since many generals have said that's what was needed early on in the war. After all, it's only a little over 20,000 troops, right? Wrong.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the deployment of of 21,500 troops could require as much as 28,000 additional troops to support the surge. It went on to say that the cost to sustain the surge could be as high as $27-billion if it's sustained for a year. Of course the cost that can't be calculated is the additional deaths that our military will sustain by having an additional 50,000 targets in Iraq.

To prevent Bush from following through on his planned surge, the senate is trying to pass a non-binding resolution opposing it. Of course, Bush's signing statements show his total disregard for binding law, so there's no expectation he'll pay any attention to the non-binding resolution.

1 comment:

The Progressive said...

The bloating has already started. Petraeus has just barely started to deploy the surge of 21,500 troops and Bush is already preparing to add 8,200 more troops on top of that. Yesterday he asked congress for $3.2-billion more as a revision to the budget to pay for the additional troops. It would fund 3,500 previously unannounced troops to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and 3,500 which he already announced would be added by extending their tour of duty that they're already serving in the theater.