With the success of the troop surge in Iraq (so says Gen. Petraeus), President Bush has decided to give the troops a break. He’s ordered a deployment cut back from 15 months to 12 months.

Whoop-de-friggin’-do.

A few things to consider:

The 12 month combat tours won’t take affect until August, 2008. Too bad, so sad for all the soldiers in the desert right now who still have to complete their 15 months tours.

It’s also interesting to note that the “new” deployment tours take affect only a few months before a new president moves into the White House. That translates into troop availability not being affected until August 2009. This could potentially be a move to disable options available to the new president who may not have as much flexibility with troop increases or decreases.

And another point made by Phillip Carter at the Washington Post who argues that the 12 month long Army deployments are still too long:

This is an extremely long deployment, particularly for troops engaged in dangerous work outside the wire and away from the comforts of large U.S. bases. The combat-stress literature suggests there is a finite limit to the quantity of combat an individual can experience before he/she breaks down and becomes “combat ineffective.” For sustained major combat operations, like Guadalcanal or the Hurtgen Forest, that figure is 60 days or so. We don’t know exactly what the figure is for sustained counterinsurgency operations of the sort practiced in Baghdad or Baqubah. But there is a limit. And the most recent mental health survey statistics from the Pentagon indicate that we are rapidly pushing our soldiers and Marines toward it — and beyond — in order to sustain the force in Iraq.

It’s apparent the damage is done for the troops who have completed both 12 and 15 month tours. Not to mention multiple deployments… many have completed three or more year long tours already. And at what cost? At the cost of “staying the coarse”?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.