mousemusings...multimedia, music, progressive politics, video, web design and general rants
Human beings will be happier - not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That's my utopia.
~Kurt Vonnegut
Friday, February 02, 2007

I'm Glad Someone Noticed

I just caught this reference on the website for Project for the Old American Century. It's a link to an article on DefenceTech.org, which in turn leads to a Congressional Budget Office report (pdf), which is an analysis of the likely costs of the troop surge that Bush has proposed.

But what is intersting is not so much the cost, but the finding that the cited figure (21,000 troops) is likely to be misleading. Misleading as in...a lie.

Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge" (Updated)

February 1, 2007 12:22 PM

President Bush and his new military chiefs have been saying for nearly a month that they would "surge" an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, in a last, grand push to quell the violence in Baghdad and in Anbar Province. But a new study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.

That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes...

Click on the link to the CBO report for the gory details. They admit that they have no way of knowing exactly how many extra troops will be required, or how much it will cost. Instead, they come up with too scenarios, each with some degree of justification. One scenario anticipates that the support troops required to support the 21,000 combat troops would bring the total closer to 35,000; the other, 48,000.

They acknowledge also that they cannot predict how long the deployment would be. So they come up with four costs, based on a 2x2 table, with either 35,000 troops or 48,000 troops, and either


35,000
45,000
4 months
9 bln
13 bln
12 months
20 bln
27 bln



Oh, and as a courtesy, DefenceTech.org points out that the White House does not agree with the CBO analysis. Details are at Think Progress. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out, but I should think that this gives Congress additional ammunition in their battle against the surge.
posted by : Joseph j7uy5 | link |   | |

line



Feeds and Info

xml

Subscribe with Bloglines

Blogroll Me!

email


xml pill


feedburner

FeedBurner.com Logo

add to my yahoo



Google
Web
mousemusings


www.flickr.com
Cyndy's photos More of Cyndy's photos


Via BuzzFeed

Recent Comments




My Del.icio.us


subscribe to
my del.icio.us feed






Categories


My




Archives

2000
8, 9, 10, 11

2001
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2002
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2003
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2004
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2005
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2006
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

2007
1, 2, 3



Links
Green
Political
Progressive Blog Alliance


sTaRe Network

blogger pro



blogrank
LS Blogs

www.blogwise.com

blogarama
Blogarama


Listed on BlogShares


blogstreet

Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next