Bush could double force by Christmas

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

The first surge was prominently announced by President Bush in a nationally televised address on Jan. 10, when he ordered five more combat brigades to join 15 brigades already in Iraq.

The buildup was designed to give commanders the 20 combat brigades Pentagon planners said were needed to provide security in Baghdad and western Anbar province.

Since then, the Pentagon has extended combat tours for units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months and announced the deployment of additional brigades.

Taken together, the steps could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, according the deployment orders examined by Hearst Newspapers.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey said there was no effort by the Army to carry out "a secret surge" beyond the 20 combat brigades ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"There isn't a second surge going on; we've got what we've got," Ey said. "The idea that there are ever going to be more combat brigades in theater in the future than the secretary of defense has authorized is pure speculation."

Ey attributed the increase in troops to "temporary increases that typically occur during the crossover period" as arriving combat brigades move into position to replace departing combat brigades.

He said that only elements of the eight additional combat brigades beyond the 20 already authorized would actually be in Iraq in December.

The U.S. Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., that tracks combat forces heading to and returning from Iraq, declined to discuss unit-by-unit deployments.

"Due to operational security, we cannot confirm or discuss military unit movements or schedules," Navy Lt. Jereal Dorsey said in an e-mail.

The Pentagon has repeatedly extended unit tours in Iraq during the past four years to achieve temporary increases in combat power. For example, three combat brigades were extended up to three months in November 2004 to boost the number of U.S. troops from 138,000 to 150,000 before, during and after the Jan. 30, 2005, Iraqi national elections.

Lawrence Korb, an assistant defense secretary for manpower during the Reagan administration, said the Pentagon deployment schedule enables the Bush administration to achieve quick increases in combat forces in the future by delaying units' scheduled departures from Iraq and overlapping them with arriving replacement forces.

"The administration is giving itself the capability to increase the number of troops in Iraq," Korb said. "It remains to be seen whether they actually choose to do that."

Nash said the capability could reflect an effort by the Bush administration to "get the number of troops into Iraq that we've needed there all along."

Pentagon limits web for troops

Washington - Lieutenant Daniel Zimmerman, a US army infantry platoon leader in Iraq, puts a blog on the internet every now and then "to basically keep my friends and family up to date" back home.

It just got tougher to do that for Zimmerman and a lot of other US soldiers. No more using the military's computer system to socialise and trade videos on MySpace, YouTube and nine other websites, the Pentagon says.

Citing security worries and technological limits, the Defence Department has cut off access to those sites for personnel using the Pentagon's computer network.

"I put my blog on there, and my family reads it," said Zimmerman, 29, a platoon leader with B Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment.

"I keep it as vague as possible," he said. "I'm pretty responsible about it. It's just basically to tell a little bit about my life over here," he said.

Private accounts

He is regularly at a base where he does not have Defence Department access to the internet, but he has used it when he goes to bigger bases. He will have to rely always on a private account now.

Memos about the change went out in February, and it took effect last week. It does not affect internet cafes that soldiers in Iraq use that are not connected to the Defence network. The cafe sites are run by a private vendor, FUBI (For US By Iraqis).

The ban does not affect other sites, such as Yahoo, and does not prevent soldiers from sending messages and photos to their families by e-mail.

Internet use has become a troublesome issue for the military as it struggles to balance security with privacy rights. As blogs and video-sharing become more common, the military has voiced increasing worries about service members revealing details of military operations or other information about equipment or procedures that could aid the fighters on the other side.

At the same time, service members have used the websites to chronicle their time in battle, posting videos and writing journals that provide powerful personal glimpses into their days at war.

Waivers allowed

After the warnings of the shutdown went out, military members were allowed to seek waivers if the sites were necessary for their jobs.

Often insurgent groups post videos, including ones of attacks or, in some high-profile cases, of US or coalition soldiers who have been captured or killed.

If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.

"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said, "and they are muzzling their best voices."

The sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos and FileCabi; social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5; music sites Pandora, MTV, 1.fm and live365; and the photo-sharing site Photobucket

Senators Prepare for Vote On War Funding Legislation

The Senate will vote this week on cutting off funding for the Iraq war and on bringing troops home by next spring, but neither outcome will be the final say in the standoff between Congress and the White House.
Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said yesterday that those questions will be tacked on to unrelated water-resources legislation. They may also carry only symbolic value. The votes would allow debate on the issue without tying up a separate $124 billion war funding bill, which Democrats hope to pass before the Memorial Day holiday.
var technorati = new Technorati() ;
technorati.setProperty('url','http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401392_Technorati.html') ;
technorati.article = new item('Senators Prepare for Vote On War Funding Legislation','http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401392.html','The Senate will vote this week on cutting off funding for the Iraq war and on bringing troops home by next spring, but neither outcome will be the final say in the standoff between Congress and the White House.','Shailagh Murray') ;
document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
p3 - Persuasion, Perseverance, and Patience
Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs
Joust The Facts
#technorati_link a {color:#339900;}
Full List of Blogs (8 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
#technorati_link a {color:#339900;}
On washingtonpost.com On the web
Save & Share Article
What's This?
Digg
Google
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
Reddit
Facebook
One amendment, co-sponsored by Reid and Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading antiwar Democrat, would cut off funding for the war as of March 31, 2008. The other, offered by Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and also endorsed by Reid, would mirror language that President Bush has already vetoed, requiring U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq as of Oct. 1, with a goal of completing combat withdrawals by March 31, 2008. To broaden the measure's appeal with Republicans, Levin added a crucial caveat: Under certain circumstances, Bush could waive the dates.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reiterated yesterday that Bush opposes any timeline for troop withdrawals.
Last week, the House approved a spending bill that would provide only enough money for the war to continue through July -- a timetable widely opposed in the Senate as too short-term. Many Republicans and Democrats agree that the war's make-or-break moment will come in the fall, when U.S. commanders assess the effects of a troop escalation currently underway.
In the Senate, consensus is building behind setting political and legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government, with some sort of consequences, including possible troop withdrawals, if the terms are not met.
Yet many Democrats also want to continue applying pressure for a complete U.S. withdrawal -- if only symbolically.
"The American people deserve to have the Senate go on record about whether or not it wants to end our misguided mission in Iraq and safely redeploy our brave troops," Feingold said.
Reid stressed that his party's objective had not changed. "Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," Reid said. But he said he had not resolved how to move the spending legislation forward.