Bush Bodysnatchers: Third way to increase troops in Iraq?
While everyone watches the deployment status of specific units, no one seems to be anticipating a third way to increase the number of "bodies" in Iraq.
As part of the re-organization of the military, deployment methods are also subject to change.
Deploying individuals in modules separately from their units -- that's being contemplated, if not already implemented.
So while everyone thinks that a particular unit is getting their well-deserved year off that was being touted by Sec. Gates, that may not be the case for all the soldiers contained in that unit.
While I would never want to hamper our military in the performance of their missions, I am equally dedicated to preventing deluded politicians like Bush and Cheney and their pals from exploiting our ignorance of such matters.
I truly wish I were not so cynical and predisposed to disbelieving our illustrious leaders. That's what happens when politicians are allowed to get away with lying our country into an illegitimate war.
I'm afraid I will be enduring this condition well into 2009.
Quicksilver,
Thank you for your report. Keep up the good work.
Best,
Ticia
April 28, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There will always be a certain amount of individual deployment, most likely with special skills. Such is fairly common among physicians.
Nevertheless, there is a fairly good consensus that individual replacements and rotation were one of the worst aspects of Vietnam for unit cohesion and morale. If such a policy were widely implemented, there could be a considerable backlash from retirees, from a few senior people who remember, and thoughtful historians among more recent soldiers.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
April 28, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
But throwing faceless ciphers into combat after the first few years of a war is such a long and well respected tradition. See, Paul Fussel's The Boys' Crusade: The American Infantry in Northwestern Europe, 1944-1945.
If necessary, some social scientist will be hired by the military to explain why it's really a good thing for all concerned.
April 29, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deploying "modules" of personnel was how my son described it to me.
May 9, 2007 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Quicksilver for bringing this out in the open. My son's 12-month deployment in Diyala was "extended" to 15 months, and another family member who is no long in the Army is worried she will be called up to go back if the "bodycount" can't be attained by June. This "surge" is a shell game.
April 28, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Marines have been taking 'short-timers', those who are due to get out before completing the next deployment and giving them few options--they can extend their enlistment for the full deployment, they can re-enlist for four more years with the 'understanding' they will be non-deployable for the first three years (there is no such thing as a guarantee in the USMC) and if they don't like that they can be shipped out tomorrow, next week, whatever with another battalion for their full deployment--go to war with guys you don't know and haven't trained with and maybe the new battalion is one that was never in combat before or not even combat ready.
Oh, and I guess they can be stoplossed. For sure they can be involuntarily called back for up to four years after they get out.
I'm sorry you've got a few more years of this not-so-merry-go-round, Quicksilver.
April 28, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink