ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Bush meets with ‘friendly circle’ of military bloggers.

On Friday, President Bush “sat down for a round-table interview” with military bloggers and talked about the war in Iraq. As the Washington Post notes, the blogs at the meeting were “generally pro-Bush and pro-military, and the ensuing reports were highly sympathetic to the president”:

Matthew Burden, a former Army officer who blogs under the name Blackfive, raved about how Bush slapped his hand and called him “brutha.”

“The President was very intelligent, razor sharp, warm, focused, emotional (especially about his dad), and genuine,” Blackfive wrote. “Even more so than this cynical Chicago Boy expected. I was overwhelmed by the sincerity — it wasn’t staged.” [...]

When it was all over, the bloggers seemed wowed. “All in all, it was an amazing day for Military.com and one I’ll never forget,” Carroll wrote. “In fact, I’d rank the event a close second to the time I sat in with Cheap Trick. It was that good.”

Politics

Gates Raises Possibility Of Deploying More National Guard And Reserve Forces To Iraq

Today on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos challenged President Bush’s assertion that the troop drawdown is because of “success” in Iraq. He asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “Wasn’t the drawdown a matter of military necessity?”

Gates insisted that the military was not broken, noting the large size of the armed forces: “After all, we’ve got 2.1 million men and women in the United States armed forces. If the circumstances required it, other choices could have been made.”

Stephanopoulos continued to push Gates, asking, “So if General Petraeus comes back in March and says we’re making some progress, but we can’t continue to draw down right now, where would the troops come from?” Gates tried to back away from answering a “hypothetical,” but eventually conceded that they would potentially have to deploy more National Guard and Reserve forces. Watch it:

The United States may have “2.1 million men and women” in the armed forces, but 1.6 million of them have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Approximately 525,000 troops have served more than once. Additionally, all “38 of the Army’s available combat units are deployed, have or are just returning or are already scheduled to deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere – leaving the U.S. without any available combat-ready units.”

Despite Gates’s claims, several current and former Bush administration officials have publicly warned for several months that current troop levels could not be sustained past the summer:

Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]

Army Chief of Staff George Casey: “Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don’t go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces.” [8/20/07]

Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]

Army Secretary Peter Geren:“[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]

Gates’s suggestion that the National Guard and Reserve could be further called upon is also unrealistic. The nation’s governors have confirmed that the Iraq war is straining their states’ abilities to respond to national emergencies. According to a recent report by a congressional commission, nearly “90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated ‘not ready,” largely “as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars’ worth of equipment.”

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Climate Progress

The Best of Climate Progress ” Winter 2007

As with The Best of Climate Progress — 2006, I’m hoping to save new readers time by going through the archives for the gems myself. It’s my version of a clip show:

Read more

Yglesias

Charting Iraqi Mortality

This is James Wimberley’s chart of efforts to estimate the death toll on Iraq. You can read here for a fuller explanation of what the chart means, and click on the image to see a larger version. He writes:

We now have four survey estimates from three independent teams of professionals using two different good-practice methods. They all say that the excess deaths in Iraq are hugely greater than the IBC body count, let alone the numbers from the MNF or the Iraqi government. The mean estimate, combining the ORB result with my extrapolations from the three older ones, is 782,000.

Sad. Maddening. I don’t really know what to say.

Security

Gates: I Would Recommend That The President Veto Giving Troops More Time At Home

The Washington Post reported this morning that one of the “best opportunities” for war critics “to change policy” in Iraq is an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), which would “mandate that home leaves for troops last as long as their deployments.” The measure failed in July to break a Republican filibuster, “but it appears to be gaining momentum in the Senate.”

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he would recommend that the President veto the bill should it pass. “Yes, I would,” said Gates when asked by host Chris Wallace, calling it a “well-intentioned idea” that would “pose greater risk to our troops”:

GATES: I think that it’s a well-intentioned idea. I think it’s really, pretty much, a back door effort to get the President to accelerate the drawdown, so that it’s an automatic kind of thing rather than based on the conditions in Iraq, with all the consequences that I talked about earlier. I think, if as I believe, the President would never approve such a bill. It would mean, if it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and in fact create, I think affect combat effectiveness, and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops.

Watch it:

Later in the show, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), whose son is set to deploy to Iraq in 2008, responded to Gates, arguing that the Webb measure is necessary because the “long-term consequence” of “these kind of deployments is absolutely disastrous for the United States of America and for the United States military.”

“If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are gonna break, break this military,” said Biden. He also said that Gates’ concerns were overblown because “we can do what we need to do in Iraq with significantly fewer troops”:

BIDEN: What are the consequences of continuing to do what we’re doing with essentially the way in which we’re deploying these troops? As the military said we’re breaking, we’re breaking the United States military. Flat breaking it. And what we’re doing is we’re going to end up in a situation where you don’t have people signing up. you’re gonna end up having to go to draft. This long-term consequence, keeping these kind of deployments is absolutely disastrous for the United States of America and for the United States military. It’s not a good thing the other way either. You choose two very bad alternatives. One very bad and one okay. If you don’t figure out how to get these folks some time home, you are gonna break, break this military. That’s what this is about. and we can do what we need to do in Iraq with significantly fewer troops. That is my contention and the contention of a whole lot of other people outside this administration.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, and other leading generals agree with Biden that the military has been stretched to a breaking point. The Webb amendment is a crucial first step towards guaranteeing it doesn’t actually break.

Digg It!

Yglesias

Electronic Records

Phillip Longman sings the praises of electronic record keeping at VA hospitals. Tyler Cowen, meanwhile, praises Shannon Brownlee’s new book on the grounds that:

The (favorable) discussion of VHA is more insightful and more subtle than the usual treatments. For instance we learn that the much-heralded computerization of VA records was created in direct violation of government law.

Ah, the dread “government law.”

Yglesias

Oil

Alan Greenspan says he is “saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” I’m saddened, too. The argument on this point never seems to go anywhere. I mean, alternative to it being “about oil” is that it was “about” Saddam’s threat to the wider region and it happens to be a region that’s . . . full of oil so it all comes around the same anyway.

The real question worth debating is whether the policies we’ve enacted in this regard are, in fact, necessary or even useful to securing the energy supply the world needs. It seems to me that they are, in fact, much more driven by paranoia and inability to do cost-benefit analysis (like would the economic damage of marginally more expensive oil really exceed the economic costs of the giant US military presence in the Gulf?) than from sober-minded calculation of what the world needs from its oil-producing regions. When there was a Soviet Union around that might plausible dominate the military east if the US didn’t push back, it may have made sense to adopt such an aggressive posture there, but instead of relaxing following the retreat of Communism we’ve tightened our grip in a way that seems to have achieved nothing.

Media

Transmission

I should be on the Sam Seder show this afternoon at 5PM easter time (do the math if you live elsewhere).

Climate Progress

British tories put U.S. conservatives to shame

conservatives.jpgU.K. conservatives are nothing like their American counterparts. They have recognized the serious threat of global warming and the political (and economic) opportunity in addressing this most challenging of problems. As reported this week:

A Conservative Party advisory group proposed on Thursday a mix of taxes, bans and incentives to green the country’s economy in a bid to beat global warming….

“This is a blueprint for a green revolution,” said group leader and former environment minister John Gummer. “I see no contradiction between greenness and economic success. The green revolution can do for Britain what the industrial revolution did a couple of hundred years ago.”

The conservative plan includes a broad range of policies affecting every aspect of the economy:

Read more

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up