Iraq: US budget profile indicates continued buildup, not drawdown

Summary: Based on the budget profiles, the actual timeline for US troop presence in Iraq is longer than publicly admitted. Think decades, not a few months.

Bullet: Duration understated.

Details: Raw references a WaPo article.

For reference, see the following manpower profiles for the US: [ Iraq manpower analysis CLick ]; also as a friendly reminder, review this: [Funding profiles Click ]

Think about three things, which may not match:

1. Requirements -- what you have to do

2. Abilities -- what you can do

3. Budget -- what you are capable of supporting

Think about two other things

A. What you can do

B. What the enemy can do

These are important things to consider when planning. You then match your requirements with your budget, and them moving things around. If you don't have enough money, you change your goals.

The problem in Iraq is that the goal -- however illegal, or absurd it has been -- has been fixed, while the resources -- or money, manpower, and material -- have been poorly managed.

The US has decided to stick to a PNAC agenda;timeline, but has what's called a resource mismatch. This means that the planning milestones that were originally set in stone are at odds with [a] what the country is willing to provide in terms of dollars are sources; [b] what the military can actually do; and [c] what the real requirement are relative to the real conditions and actual conditions, not the simulations.

* * *

With the above in mind . . .let's jump into Raw's WaPo link.

The funding increases are curious. If you track the growth over time, you'll see they are growing exponentially. This indicates a build-up phase, and is not consistent with the White House assertions that they are getting ready to leave.

One analogy is the growth, leveling off, then decline -- a bell shaped curve. This funding increase is consistent with the first phase, and is not content with -- what the White House wants us to believe -- is part of the drawdown.

Using these kinds of curves and estimates on funding, it is possible to back-engineer the funding-manpower-program profiles; and then -- using calculus -- you can forward-project the real growth curves of the budget. Yes, it's a guess, but it's fairly good as a place to have a discussion: What is going on, and what are your real plans.

The same type of process can be used when comparing the growth rates in the budget of Iraq to the contrast of what LBJ was saying about Vietnam.

In short, the same time of manpower-budget-forecasts can be compared to the enemy's manpower and you can identify problems or shortfalls, not just in budgets but also manpower and resources. This was originally done before 2002; and the forecasts showed a problem. This was reconfirmed in 2003 and 2004.

* * *

Overall, based on the rate of increase of the budget, relative to the known manpower forecasts made in 2004, we are still in Phase I, not II, or III.

In order to draw down the troops, one has to exit first Phase II, then start Phase III. Based on the angle of where we are in Phase I, we're far from leveling off, we're still in the build-up phase. We're no where near Phase II.

That's a problem for the DNC. Your apparent goal -- drawdown, withdrawal -- appears to be at odds with what has already been planned and contracted for. Depending on the time horizon, it may cost more money to cancel the contracts immediately than to execute over the years going forward.

* * *

Congress knows this. The only way to drawdown is to have a rapid reversal. This is impossible. It takes time to adjust the flow of money, resources, and manpower.

It appears Iran is being used a staging area for broader conquest. This is why the US doesn't like the Iraqi or Hamas election results: They are voting against what the US wants to do.

So much for Democracy, and so much for the drawdown.

* * *

As both the RNC and DNC plan, the questoin is whether either have a plan to reverse this.

The answer is: They don't. There is too much momentum, and it's not credible that things will change quickly next year. In order to sustain a withdrawal, you actually have increase support for coverage, and cleanup. This requires an additional buildup and overlap, not just for the support, but you physically have to have more people on the ground for coverage and protection.

The issue: The US is asserting “we’re at war” to get Congress to appropriate. The reality is that this is not a “war” – as defined under the Constitution – and the rate of spending is not sustainable. Rather, the “purpose of the military activity” is merely a police action; but Congress is willing to support this drunken sailor.

Even if the DNC wins and takes control of the House, there is insufficient time to credibly withdrawal. The funding and resources are physically stuck in place; you’re going to have to come up with a credible plan to argue otherwise.

Yes, it’s far easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission. The US merely shifted the Cold War troop emplacements from Europe to the Middle East. The war against the USSR – and the Cold War stand off against Eastern Europe -- has now shifted to the Middle East. Fewer troops, higher cost, and less flexibility.

Caesar, Hitler, Napoleon, and Stalin overreached to the East. America decided to see if it could overcome history.

This may bankrupt America, and it’s why Gold is going up.

* * *

Other: On Iran, the UK doesn't want to appear weak, so let's keep options on the table. [ Click ]

Translation: If you can't be smart, be stupid.