Archive for February, 2007
An article in Today’s Tacoma News-Tribune has this quick rundown of the current status of the Army’s seven Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCT):
- The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis is now in Baghdad on its second deployment to Iraq. It was the initial Stryker brigade to see action, in 2003-04.
- The 2nd Cavalry Regiment — previously the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division from Fort Lewis — is stationed in Germany. As the 1-25, the brigade spent a year in Iraq in 2004-05.
- The 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, stationed in Alaska, recently reflagged as the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division and is resetting after returning in December from a 15-month deployment in Iraq.
- The 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division will leave Fort Lewis next month for Iraq.
- The 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division is in the early stages of development at Fort Lewis.
- The 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii is converting from light infantry to a Stryker brigade, although its development is tied up in a federal court lawsuit brought by environmentalists who oppose Stryker training in the islands.
- The 56th Brigade of the Pennsylvania National Guard is scheduled to complete its transformation to a Stryker brigade in 2008.
The 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division will be reflagged as the 2nd Brigade, 2nd Division when the current 2nd Brigade is inactivated late this year.
When the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division deploys to Iraq next month, it will be the first unit to deploy with the Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS). Troops have been waiting for the firepower of the 105mm gun for over three years.
Pic below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Murdoc is in third in the Milbloggies! Get over and vote!
Atlantis Arrives At Pad 39A
The March 15th launch will be the first from the historic 39A pad in four years.
UPDATE: No, I don’t know where the rest of this installment of Linkzookery is. Has anyone seen it? Sheesh. This was the worst Linkzookery ever.
Heck. For more Conservatives like Lieberman:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.
Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.
“I have no desire to change parties,” Lieberman said in a telephone interview. “If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don’t feel comfortable with.”
Lieberman is an independent but still votes with the Dems. If he were to change sides, he’d give the Senate back to the GOP.
Via Frank Warner: This is big. Lieberman has saved Iraq.
Dean Esmay: The Most Powerful Man In The Senate
I never thought I’d appreciate the Netroots folks. But, oddly, I suddenly do.
Weird.
UPDATE: You can see that MSNBC.com is all over the Lieberman development:
I thought we’d have all sorts of gushing headlines about “maverick” Senators and such…
A ‘Surge’ To Far? In For the Long Haul
Michael Hirsch seems to think he’s on to something:
The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that?
I’m not sure about the folks running for president. But I’m pretty sure just about everyone who’s serious about a meaningful victory in Iraq realizes it and has realized it for a long, long time. Mr. Hirsch just seems to have found out.
The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying–and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge”? plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.
First of all, this isn’t news. Long before the “Petraeus plan”, officials were acknowledging that we’d be in Iraq for “years to come”. In fact, the “Perhaps 10 years. At least five.” bit even makes headlines every once in a while.
Remember the “demon eyes Condoleezza Rice” photo in the USA Today? That was in October of 2005. Any idea what the title of the article was? Well, it was Rice won’t rule out U.S. troops in Iraq in 10 years. If this was discussed a year and a half ago (and it wasn’t the first or last time that it was) why does Hirsch think he’s scooping everyone all of a sudden? It couldn’t have anything to do with presenting things in a certain way so that the audience thinks a certain way, could it?
Read the rest of this entry »
A spectator watches USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) as she departs Naval Station Mayport for the last underway period before her decommission in March. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Elizabeth Williams
From Navy News Stand.
Thanks to a late rush by MO readers, Murdoc has qualified for the finals in the 2006 Milbloggies in the Military Supporter category. Head on over and vote for your favorite.
Voting in all categories is open. Registration is required, but it’s quick and easy.
Many, many thanks to all who nominated ol’ Murdoc.
Yesterday I posted on this picture:
It reads:
America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall.
I had been forwarded the pic without any source, but I’ve since learned that it was in the Kansas City Star and is a Getty Images photo taken by John Moore. One Marine’ s View also noted it. According to the Star, it was taken at a Marine Civil Affairs office in Ramadi in January.
Mitch Lewis has a great post on how the members of the military look at such things and how American citizens need to stay focused in what is going to be a Long War:
We cannot make decisions about this war based on fatigue, anxiety or self-interest. The stakes are too high for that. If the news is disturbing, don’t look at it until you can read it with your head instead of your gut. Eventually, find the courage to read beyond the –if it bleeds it leads” headlines. Choose to base your thinking on your intellect and will instead of on your weariness or fear. Choose to look beyond your own needs to the needs our nation and our world. As a nation, choose whatever strategy or course of action you think best achieves the greatest good and the members of the armed forces will execute it.
Be courageous; the members of the armed forces that serve you are more courageous still. You cannot ask too much from them. They will march through hell if you are behind them.
This has apparently become the topic of the week. (Well, at least it’s better than Britney’s hair styles…)
Dadmanly posts on the comparison between the number of military deaths in Iraq and the number of military deaths under Bill Clinton, a topic that I first posted on eleven months ago and mentioned again yesterday.
First, I would strongly caution against trying to read too much into this comparison, surprising though the numbers are. Many critics of the comparison are accusing comparison-makers of claiming that “more troops died under Clinton than are dying under Bush”, which isn’t true. Never mind that I don’t know of anyone actually making that claim. Be sure your words cannot be interpreted to make it.
However, the fact isn’t that the numbers are lower than during Clinton’s presidency, it’s that they’re not nearly as much higher as you’d expect considering that we’ve conquered two nations and are in the process of returning those two nations to their rightful owners in the midst of two determined insurgencies.
We are fighting a war and are losing 36% more troops (2001-2004 only) than we lost under Clinton. Is that a lot? I don’t think so, considering what we’ve done and what we’re doing.
Here’s how I got that 36% (using this as a source):
From 1993-2000 under Clinton, the average total size of the military (factoring in Guard and Reserves as they were active) was 1,630,618 per year. During that period, an average of 938 military personnel died per year of all causes for a death rate of 0.057%.
From 2001-2004 under Bush, the average total size of the military (factoring in Guard and Reserves as they were active) was 1,655,947 per year. During that period, an average of 1,297 military personnel died per year of all causes for a death rate of 0.078%.
0.078 is 36.21% higher than 0.057.
Please note that this is the death rate. This means that the respective sizes of the militaries under the two presidents has been factored in. Also please note that this is deaths from all causes. If you check out the charts I created last year, you’ll see that the rate numbers track the total numbers closely enough to pretty much dismiss variations in the size of the force as a meaningful issue.
The point is that if one said the total military death rate under Bush is only about a third higher than it was under Clinton despite the fact that we’ve invaded and liberated two countries from brutal dictatorships and then stuck around to help them deal with even more brutal insurgencies, I don’t think many folks would believe you. But that’s the fact. I don’t know exactly how relevant that fact is, but it is a fact.
If you want to start more dumb number games, maybe you could take the differences and play with them. Say, 1297-938=359 more deaths per year under Bush. So in the six years of Bush’s presidency 2,154 more troops have died than would have died if the death rates had remained as they were under Clinton.
The problem there, of course, is that 2,154 is far fewer than the total of 3,518 that have died in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. 3,518 war zone deaths should have increased the yearly death total by 586, not 359. That could be interpreted to mean that the increase due deployments to war zones has been paritally* offset by a decrease in other areas and, therefore, that Bush’s use of the military in war is more efficient (for want of a better term) than Clinton’s use of the military in peacetime.
That’s the sort of thing you come up with if you try too hard with casualty numbers.
Dadmanly writes:
We are accomplishing much at very little expense, comparatively, however much we grieve at the loss of many fine Americans who have volunteered to serve and paid the ultimate price.
As they say: Indeed.
