The Simple Arithmetic of a Fraudulent Surge

How many troops do we have to replace the ones deployed in Iraq today? You can make a good case the number is zero. But any stab at answering the question punctures the fantasy that the surge is an unalloyed success. And our reluctance to even consider the question tells us something else, that the surge was a sham intended to delay the day of reckoning. From its inception, the Iraq war strategy was like a plan to fly across the Pacific without enough fuel to get to the other side. The surge made the plane fly faster. Apparently, even George Packer doesn't quite get it. So I'll spell it out. Our troops are like jet fuel.

"How often can a soldier be put in harm's way and still desire to remain in the Army? The answer is different for every soldier, but the deployment ratio range seems to be somewhere in between 3:1 and 5:1. That is, for every brigade that is forward deployed in combat operations or in a 'hardship' tour, there must exist between three and five brigades to sustain rotation. Thus a 3:1 rotation base would find soldiers deployed on such missions one-third of the time; a 5:1 rotation would see them deployed one fifth of their service time. For the purposes of this assessment, a 4:1 deployment ratio is assumed." TheThin Green Line by Andrew Krepinevich, August 14, 2004. A study commissioned by the Pentagon.

U.S. Department of Defense Policy calls for a 2:1 deployment ratio. Senator James Webb's bill, to require a 1:1 deployment ratio, was killed by Republicans.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission got it. The Iraq Study Group also grasped the other realities that our government and mainstream press continue to ignore. Iraq's leaders are much closer to Iran than they are to the United States. As reported last month by Forecast International Defense Intelligence Newsletters, Iraq's defense minister signed signed a memorandum of understanding on defense cooperation with Iran.

And while the strategic interests of the government's of Iraq and the U.S. are different, there is no avoiding the fact that any security solution requires the proactive involvement of Iraq's neighbors. They control transit across the common borders and they have absorbed millions of Iraqi refugees. As David Ignatius' column makes clear, there is no way we can gain the upper hand over the Iranians by our troop presence, because we can never match their ability to secure intelligence. Iranians can blend in to Iraq (as they have for hundreds of years) whereas our troops cannot. That's why James Baker said it made no sense to pick and choose from the ISG proposal as if it were a fruit salad. And of course the surge played out exactly as the ISG report said it would.

The surge was like all the other bait-and-switch scams used to spin away the implications of our Iraq policy. Witness Robert Gates' empty promises to end the stop loss program and shortening tours of duty. During his confirmation hearings, Gates emphasized that "all options are on the table" for Iraq and as soon as he took office, all of the options of the ISG report were disregarded in favor of Petraeus' surge. And then the stalling began. First, the surge needed time to work. Then, because the surge was working well, there would be a "pause" in the rate of troop withdrawals, which was a euphemism for making troop levels higher than ever. Then, we were told to hold off on any judgement until Petraeus gave his report the following month. Now, we hear that the surge is such a success that the handoff should be slow and gradual.

If we accept the mainstream narrative on its face, the surge worked. It transformed the U.S. troop presence from being counterproductive to being indispensable for maintaining stability. But can we continue with anything close to the current level of troops deployed over there?

Here's a very incomplete laundry list of warnings that the answer is clearly, "No."

(By the way, guess how much The White House budgeted for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2009. Zero.)

1. "Mullen's Choice: Troops For Afghanistan Or Troops For Iraq," Washington Independent, July 3, 2008

2. "Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says," The Washington Post, February 16, 2007

3. "U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat," USA Today, May 8, 2008

4. "US Sent Medically Unfit Soldiers to Iraq, Pentagon Acknowledges," Knight-Ridder, March 25, 2004

5. "Pentagon Ends Time Limit On Guard, Reserve, Stretched Thin In Iraq, Army Abandons 24-Month Limit On Time Citizen-Soldiers Must Serve," CBS/AP, January 12, 2007

6. "Col.: DOD delayed brain injury scans," USA Today, March 18, 2008

"For more than two years, the Pentagon delayed screening troops returning from Iraq for mild brain injuries because officials feared veterans would blame vague ailments on the little-understood wound caused by exposure to bomb blasts, says the military's director of medical assessments."

7. "Scientists: Brain injuries from war worse than thought," USA Today, September 23, 2007.

"Scientists trying to understand traumatic brain injury from bomb blasts are finding the wound more insidious than they once thought.
"They find that even when there are no outward signs of injury from the blast, cells deep within the brain can be altered, their metabolism changed, causing them to die, says Geoff Ling, an advance-research scientist with the Pentagon.
"The new findings are the result of blast experiments in recent years on animals, followed by microscopic examination of brain tissue. The findings could mean that the number of brain-injured soldiers and Marines -- many of whom appear unhurt after exposure to a blast -- may be far greater than reported, says Ibolja Cernak, a scientist with the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory."

9. "Invisible Wounds of War," a report by The Rand Corporation, April 2008.

"We estimate that approximately 300,000 individuals currently suffer from PTSD or major depression and that 320,000 individuals experienced a probable TBI [traumatic brain injury] during deployment.
"About one-third of those previously deployed have at least one of these three
conditions, and about 5 percent report symptoms of all three. Some specific groups,
previously understudied--including the Reserve Components and those who have left
military service--may be at higher risk of suffering from these conditions.Of those reporting a probable TBI, 57 percent had not been evaluated by a physician for brain injury."

Can anyone add to this list?

Comments

[lthuedk_1]

Meanwhile, the betrayer of our fighting men and women refuses to say no - refuses to refuse a single command from a certifiable dictatorship.

I'm speaking to you, General Petraeus: How dumb do you think Americans are? And your soldiers?

http://www.light-to-dark.com/the_petraeus_insult.html

You sir, are aiding and abetting in the killing of our ground forces, when you should be resisting with every fiber of your existence to protect them and our Constitution. If you even suspected a fraud was under way, why did you obey?

Why?

Well, in the coming months, we will tell you. Sir.

[gage]

Certifiable dictatorship?
Mr. Olbermann, Sir, I think you are hyperventilating.

[gopindrag]

A Signing Statement is a Dictator's tool. Yes, the signing statement has been around. The difference is like the difference between someone who has slept around and someone who has slept around for money.
Have you asked yourself how you feel about the next president using signing statements? How do you feel about anyone in this country declaring themselves above the law? I'm not OK with that, are you?

[gorgol]

Two words to describe the Bush Administration and all its initiatives, from the time they walked through the White House doors...
"Pure Evil".
Once that's accepted..all else falls into place.

[jbatch]

David:

All true, but I'm curious -- why didn't you make reference to the 18 objective the surge was supposed to accomplish, and the GAO report which says it failed to meet most of them?

And you might also have mentioned that violence is down in part because we are, in essence, paying Sunnis not to revolt, and Sader has called a cease-fire -- temporarilly.

And then of course there's the fact that there are almost no mixed neighborhoods -- much of Iraq and most of Bagdad are walled ghettos of various sects patrolled by armed militia. Of course there's less violence, but that was never the only -- or even main -- goal of the surge.

I guess, my point Dave, is that there are some far more fundamental problems with the surge than the question of whether it's sustainable -- such as the fact that it's not accomplishing most of it's stated goals.

[gage]

The Iraq government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks set for it by the US congress.

[bgregs]

And by "met" you mean have either looked and then done NOTHING further, or looked at and NOT said point blank "NO"! right??

The only three that they said no progress has been made on are the ones that the leadership of Iraq has said that they will never do!

[JimR]

What's almost never mentioned in MSM coverage of the surge is that part of it involved, and still involves, hiring 80,000 Iraqis, mostly Sunnis, to be part of their own security force.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge

[syllepsis]

We are arming both sides in the Civil War, and hoping to keep a lid on until they won't need us to stop them from going at it too intensely. Meanwhile we bleed slowly and forget why we got involved in the first place.
It is obviously in no one's interest to have us leave, particularly, a weaker faction's interest.
What is the plan again?

[NoFactsJustTruth]

Thanks, David, the main stream corporate media not only plays along with the administration and Pentagon that Muslim on Muslim violence does not count in ANY of their surge (escalation) totals, but these sycophantic pseudo-journalists also completely fail to report on the concurrent surge in U.S. taxpayer dollar 'don't-shoot OUR troops BRIBES' to the freedom-fighting Iraqis trying to rid themselves of us.

Now the same MSM acts like they don't need to discuss that the geopolitical invasion and occupation actually happened FOR OIL, like they knew all along and 'what's the big deal' so forget it. The ONLY reason the preznutz cut-and-ran from Tora Bora was to denationalize Iraq's natural resources and intentionally destabilize the region, and though that sort of turned OUR country into the nazi aggressors of the 21st Century, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of innocents for THEIR resources, all we still get is "blah blah blah war on terra...", and "blah blah blah AL Qaeda...", even though the $12 BILLION a month CRIME and OUR economy in shambles are inextricably linked. Cause and effect...

Serious investigative journalism of this sort is ALWAYS appreciated.

[oxford]

Link didn't post as written, Should be:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[oxford]

You people should take the time to read the following manifesto about the PNAC. See what they advocate, see who they are, remember where they appear in this administration and on the MSM as pundits. You, who take the time will reailize that US war ambitions will not end in any of your lifetimes. These are the most treacherous people this country has ever seen.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_ American_Century

[Mike789]

It's obvious the Surge was a tactical success. More troops and holding ground and the buying of Sunni militants works. My contention is that we have no criteria of sustained success if we never cut the umbical cord. A sustained reduction in the violent insurgency and a sectarian rapprochement can only be assessed if we first retrun to pre-surge troop levels. Then there's proof in the pudding.

As it stands now, we are the surrogate strong man in Iraq. To debunk that assertion, you have to demonstrate that Iraq has attained a cogent sense of nationalism. The "catch 22", to my thinking, is that a sense of nationalism is inhibited by our presence where we are blocking the horizon line and looking over Iraqi's shoulders. Not a terrific confidence builder.

It is not difficult to extrapolate that the present administration reluctance to disengage is cathexed with the misfortune of a Shiite alignment with Iran. Better to have first studied Clauswitz and go forth than its obvious collolary.

Retired General McCaffrey recently voiced an opinion that the Iraqis will stand up. When are we going to validate the efforts of our troops. "Support the troops" with a cessation of this open ended policy. Not an process or project in Nature, from the planting of a seed to the building of a bridge has been attained without a schedule, a criteria of progress.

[DonKrieger]

Hearing Loss & Tinnitus:

From the New York Daily News, 11/11/2007
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2007/11/11/2007-11-11_iraq__afghanistan_war_vets_suffer_from_h.html

"Thirty percent of soldiers deployed in Iraq return with tinnitus, Army doctors reported in a study published last year. Among those exposed to roadside bomb blasts, 50% have it.

Triggered by hearing loss, head injuries and loud noises, tinnitus causes phantom sounds sufferers describe as ringing, roaring or hissing in one or both ears. It can be intermittent or constant - and distracting enough to be crippling.

There is no cure, and treatment is by trial and error.

The ballooning caseload has come at a cost to U.S. taxpayers. In 2005, the Veterans Administration paid $418 million in tinnitus-related disability, up from $150 million five years before, says the American Tinnitus Association. "

Of those with hearing loss and tinnitus AP reported in March of this year: "Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the war on terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear. Nearly 70,000 of the more than 1.3 million troops who have served in the two war zones are collecting disability for tinnitus, a potentially debilitating ringing in the ears, and more than 58,000 are on disability for hearing loss, the VA said."

Don

[lthuedk_1]

For me, tinnitus is on, full blast 24/7. 5 inch cannon will do it every time.

When exactly will General Petraeus hold a press conference without consulting with the dictatorship? He should have taken Adm Mullen more seriously. He should have taken Gen Pace much, much more seriously.

[tc399]

I have tinnitus from 1968. The VA agreed. I was sprayed by a C123 Caribou dispensing Agent Orange, but some of the spray heads were missing and we got soaked. The VA agreed. There was no such thing as PTSD after 'Nam, but I presumptively have it by having been in combat. The VA agreed. They gave me a nice red,white and blue ID card. So the Marine Corps rescinded my CAR (and any possible claim I might have had) and simply decreed that, TET aside, and wittness statements and the witnesses themselves and a dessicated ear, I had never been in combat.

Mothers, don't your sons and daughters grow up to be combatants. The only way they can even get a FLAG is is on their casket.

[crusty]

The "Splurge" cost us taxpayers, or our great-grandchildren, a few hundreds of millions of dollars, while costing many more American lives and preserving the Bush administration for a few months more. Who says it didn't work??

[crusty]

"The Surge worked." "I have a nice bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I'll sell you cheap."

Just HOW did the "Surge" work? It was supposed to buy time for the Iraquis to achieve political reconciliation, after which we would withdraw. DID they achieve political reconciliation? Well...no. Are we withdrawing? Well... no. In fact, we now have MORE troops in Iraq than we had before the "Surge" began. So the "Surge worked." As a marketing tool.

[zigzag1]

The surge will reduce violence as long as we send military officers with millions of our dollars out every day to pay off the various war lords not to kill people.
We are buying off violence and charging the billions on the big Chinese credit card. Millions of Iraqi's have fled the country and we are supporting the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods. This is the plan to bring peaceful democracy to the Middle East ? The British tried that colonization thing hundreds of years ago and look how well it worked

[DrFitz]

Every time I hear some talking head in the MSM parrot that the surge is working, I want to follow Lara Logan's advice and blow my brains out. It's enraging that no one is calling the administration on this blatant ploy to offload responsibility for failure to someone else while prolonging the train wreck of operating without a valid strategy for salvaging this fiasco.

[mbaty]

With all these people having PTSD, and all the children diagnosed with autism, how much longer can we keep up this economy, this military, or this way of doing business? But they know they can't bring back the draft, or there will be a surge of "hippies" rallying that, finally, enough is enough. Right now, though, it's kind of up to the troops to stand up for themselves, and when they do (as some have already done) it will be up to us to support them.

[egal]

The troops have stood up for ourselves and others, but our nation left us in the lurch. There's little more we can do; we have no legal right to sue, no media that wants the truth, no public that wants to focus on improving our lives rathern than playing at patriotism, and the only change that has come out of Bush's decision to cut all funding to Walter Reed so soldiers would have to get private medical care they can't afford--and aren't permitted to get by the system even if they could--is that he's gotten what he wanted.

We've been working hard to get better care and preparation and benefits, but Bush has refused to make soldier pay even just KEEP UP with inflation so that soldiers with families are almost all on foodstamps now. He severely cut funding to soldier disability payment and rehab, troop hospitals, CONUS hospitals, and Veterans agencies such as the VA.

Every once in a great while, an individual soldier who stands up gets noticed, helped, or at least listened to. Most get kicked out of the military, forced to stay in when they physically or mentally can't keep doing it, or left with no job or family or support system or medical care or education or money enough to surive with their crippling issues,.

Until the public starts listening, caring, and acting, the soldiers are stuck with BOHICA and no recourse for better.

[theconsigliere1]

The surge has been successful? At what? With all due respect, the purpose of the surge was to decrease hostilities so the political process could have the breathing room to coalesce into a working government that could sustain itself and protect its own people. The facts are that while hostilities have decreased, there has been no movement in the Iraqi polical process and the paper-thin government cannot sustain itself or protect its own people. Therefore, the surge has not worked.

[sdskelton03]

There has been movement in the political process.

Of the 15 benchmarks congress set during the 06 funding process, 13 are being graded as satisfactory. Additionally, althought there has been no legislation regarding the permanent distribution of oil revenues, the revenues are being shared.

The Iraqi army has been stepping up its own security measures and has been leading the fight and defeating the insurgents in several provinces.

The best evidence of the success of the surge has been Obama's move away from his initial promise to begin the redeployment process on his first day in office. He now realizes that we are on our way to acheiving our goals and knows that immediate redeployment will be a losing position in November.

[bgregs]

There has been NO progress on the political front! The only people who are claiming that there has been some success on the political front are the ones working for bush and faux news! those 13 which have been graded "satisfactory" are the ones which haven't yet been COMEPLETLY smacked down by the Iraqi govt!