AP: Army planning to keep current troops levels through 2010

Thorgrim · 10-11-2006, 11:33 AM

The U.S. Army has plans that would keep the current level of troops in Iraq - about 15 brigades - through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday.

Associated Press Pop-up Link

By that time, going by this month's current rate of violence...we'd have around 4,000 more dead Americans, and be presiding over an occupation that would see 150,000 MORE dead Iraqis, AND THATS ASSUMING THINGS DON'T GET WORSE

Stay the Course

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 11:34 AM

This is sure to make everyone not-so-happy.

Scrum · 10-11-2006, 11:34 AM

Freedom is on the march.

Stylerod · 10-11-2006, 11:43 AM

Gotta plan ahead. The Army has no idea how long they are going to stay. Right? Could be 5 years, could be 5 months.

smokie700 · 10-11-2006, 11:44 AM

from the article:
The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned that people not read too much into the planning, because it is easier to pull back forces than to get units prepared and deployed at the last minute.
"This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better," Schoomaker told reporters. "It's just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot."

....................................

I agree with the logic.

Thorgrim · 10-11-2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Gotta plan ahead. The Army has no idea how long they are going to stay. Right? Could be 5 years, could be 5 months.

Could be 50 years, a thousand?

Stylerod · 10-11-2006, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Could be 50 years, a thousand?

eleventy billion.

Phantom · 10-11-2006, 11:52 AM

at least they are planning this time

DosEquis · 10-11-2006, 12:20 PM

2010? I thought we were giving time tables. Way to help the bad guys US Army.

Scrum · 10-11-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

at least they are planning this time

It's the same time though. It's all part of one big clusterfuck.

thomez · 10-11-2006, 12:38 PM

who really thinks that could happen

not I

smokie700 · 10-11-2006, 12:41 PM

i don't see the big deal. the army has plans for every situation. planning does not mean doing in the military.

motivez · 10-11-2006, 01:49 PM

The issue isn't that they're planning, it's that this is what they're spending time planning, rather than how to change to a strategy that might actually get them some positive results out of Iraq.

Maybe they can multitask? So far, doesn't seem much like it.

Stylerod · 10-11-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The issue isn't that they're planning, it's that this is what they're spending time planning, rather than how to change to a strategy that might actually get them some positive results out of Iraq.

Maybe they can multitask? So far, doesn't seem much like it.

So you think there is one thing they can do to change things around, and until they find that one thing, they should not plan for anything else?

motivez · 10-11-2006, 02:09 PM

Nope, I think they should have been focusing on a plan to win for the last few years once it become blatently obvious to even the most hopeful of people that what was going on wasn't working.. rather than planning for us to "stay the course and lose" on the current strategy.

They can base troop levels around that new plan rather than this current clusterfuck of a "strategy". Of course they should plan short term to ensure everything will continue to go as "smooth" (lol, smooth) as possible in the short term, but long term planning should be predicated by a change in strategy.