Congressional Budeget Office (CBO) Report Reveals Truth about Kerry's fix for US Military in Iraq

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) ^ | September 3, 2003 | Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

[X180A]

Kerry has said that our military is overtaxed in Iraq and that he would create two more divisions to fix it. His two new divisions was one of several options discussed in Congress in 2002 and 2003. Creating two new divisions was rejected as a viable solution. The report makes it clear why Kerry's solution is the wrong choice. The following extract is a discussion of the option titled "Increase the Army's End Strength."

Extract: "In this option, the active Army would grow by 80,000 personnel--enough, CBO estimates, to provide the service with another heavy division, one more light division, and 19,000 additional support personnel.(21) CBO assumed that the additional support units created would be largely military police, civil affairs, and psychological-operations units. Those types of support personnel have been in high demand in peacekeeping operations over the past decade and are concentrated in the Army's reserve component. Thus, creating additional active units of those types could reduce the levels of mobilization and deployment needed for reserve personnel. If the Army's end strength (the level at which DoD is authorized to recruit and maintain the service) was expanded by 80,000 personnel, the size of the occupation that could be sustained in Iraq over the long term would increase by 18,000 to 23,000 military personnel--equivalent to another 1 2/3 to 2 combat brigades. Excluding the costs of creating the new divisions and paying for their peacetime operation and support (which are discussed below), using those personnel in the occupation would cost an additional $3 billion to almost $4 billion annually, CBO estimates. This option would also increase the average number of reserve personnel mobilized by about 10,000 to 11,000."

The report goes on to say that such an increase "would take several years to accomplish".

[X180A]

Kerry will spend, spend, spend and make the army 30% bigger by instituting a plan rejected by Congress because it lacked merit.

Kerry contantly criticizes Bush for calling up so many National Guard and Reserves and he warns Bush will bring back a draft to meet personnel shortages. But Kerry told us his plan during the debate. He says he plans to create two more divisions and double the Special Forces. What he is refering to is one of many options that was considered by the Congressional Budget Office last year. The result is not only an 80,000 man increase in active forces, but it also requires a 10,000-11,000 increase in reserve forces. It would cost an additional $3-4 billion annually and it has tremendous one time costs for training and equipment. After all, 90,000 pair of boots, field gear, and rifles are expensive but that's just the start. You also have all the trucks, machineguns, mortars, armor, payroll, training, billeting, and sustainment costs.

The current administration chose its course of action from the many that were considered. The choice Kerry alluded to was considered but not chosen for obvious reasons.

Contraditions: Kerry can't decrease the number of soldiers called to duty and increase the military by 2 divisions at the same time. Kerry can't cut the cost of military expendatures in Iraq and increase military spending by over $3 billion at the same time. Kerry can't claim that Bush has a secret plan to institute a draft because the army can't get enough volunteers and then tell us Kerry as president will increase military manning by 90,000 more people - from where? And Kerry can't criticize Bush for calling up so many reserves when he wants to add two new divisions that would require an additional 10,000 reserves.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

bttt