Iraq tours shortened (back) to 12 months

National Public Radio is a great news source and they promise news with context.  So it was an extreme disappointment to hear them parrot the Bush Administration's horn toot that Iraq tours of duty will be reduced to (the original) 12 months.

See, in April 2007, the Bush Administration increased tours of duty from 12 to 15 months as part of the "surge."

Go ahead and let the President have a quote about "helping soldiers and their families," but for God's sake tell the truth, too.  This isn't some sort of special benefit or policy, it's restoring the tours of duty to the length that soldiers actually signed up for. 

Oh, and "it won't apply to troops now serving."

Liberal media, my ass.

Would a larger army make us safer?

Many of the Democratic candidates for president are arguing for increases in the size of the standing army. Barack Obama has a specific figure - 92,000 troops - and Mitt Romney and other Republicans are advocating for "at least 100,000." But what will a larger army buy us in an age of terrorism?

This bipartisan consensus -- which even includes Bush, who recently unveiled his own five-year plan to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps -- illustrates the inability or refusal of the political class to grasp the true nature of our post-9/11 foreign-policy crisis. Any politician who thinks that the chief lesson to be drawn from the last five years is that we need more Americans toting rifles and carrying rucksacks has learned nothing...

[The] second consensus consists of two elements. According to the first element, the only way to win the so-called global war on terrorism, thereby precluding another 9/11, is to "fix" whatever ails the Islamic world. According to the second element, the United States possesses the wherewithal to effect just such a transformation. In essence, by employing American power, beginning with military power, to ameliorate the ills afflicting Islam, we will ensure our own safety.

As the author says, "this is sheer twaddle."

The failure to protect ourselves on 9/11 was an intelligence failure, not a military one. Investing in more troops with limited resources simply means a smaller focus on what items actually protect us.

Second, we have proven rather effectively that a military solution to the threat of terrorism (or Islamic extremism) is a failure.

To those arguments against the strategies in the war on terror, I'd add that we're less likely to have our volunteer men and women deployed to foreign wars by swashbuckling presidents if there are fewer of them to go around. A bigger standing army is no way to reign in an extralegal president.

Bush's new plan

In case you missed Bush's speech on the "new" Iraq strategy, you can find the transcript here. The big question left unanswered is whether 20,000 troops can make up for coming into Iraq with some 200,000 fewer troops than General Shinseki and others felt would be necessary to have adequate security. Bush notes most of these troops will go to Baghdad, to help secure the city. But what about the destabilized areas in the rest of the country?

The American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, just released a report that said that U.S. troops need to increase by 30,000 per year for the next two years to safely secure the country.

Ironically, the smaller surge proposed by President Bush could still put a strain on the army. To have 20,000 more troops in Iraq, the Army will either have to extend deployments or return troops before their leave is up.

The surge also goes against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, who feel that any surge in troops should be large and long-lasting, to guarantee an impact.

Conclusion? The surge was the most political palatable option for staying the course when so many Americans want to bring the troops home. And yet, it may be one of the dumbest ideas because it will put more troops in the line of fire without necessarily securing the country. Steve Sack (once again) may have said it best: