NY Times, McClatchy uncritically reported Bush claim that congressional actions will extend troops' tours of duty

Written by Julie Millican

Published

An April 4 New York Times article -- titled "Bush Blames Democrats for Impasse Over Iraq Bills" -- uncritically reported President Bush's April 3 assertion that in the Times' words, “a failure by Congress to approve the $100 billion” Bush “had requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would prolong some tours in Iraq and shorten time at home between tours for others.” Similarly, McClatchy Newspapers reported on April 3 without refutation Bush's claim that, "[t]he bottom line is this, Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," and "[o]thers could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to." In fact, although both articles noted that the House and Senate have passed funding bills (undermining Bush's accusation that it's the Congress that would be denying funding to the troops), by simply reporting Bush's claim about having to force extended tours in Iraq and curtail troops' time away from battle -- they both left out a key point: The administration has already forced extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and has curtailed thousands of soldiers' time at home, away from a war zone -- and reports indicate that this will continue in the future.

Currently, the Marine Corps operates under a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio, meaning the length of a unit's deployment is equal to the length of time that unit is at its “home station.” According to news reports, the Marines are currently engaging in seven-month tours. The Army reportedly operates under a similar deployment-to-dwell ratio, with units being deployed for 12 months then returning home for 12 months. But, due to the ongoing conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Bush's mandated Iraq troop increase, numerous military units have found their tours extended or their time away from the war zone curtailed. For instance:

  • Most recently, the Pentagon announced April 2 that “additional major units scheduled to deploy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” totaling approximately 9,000 troops. On the April 2 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbra Starr reported that while "[t]rying to make the troop levels stick at least into 2008," the Pentagon's announcement was indicative that “the Army is stretched thin ... to the breaking point.” According to Starr, at least two divisions -- the 4th Infantry Division in Texas and New York's 10th Mountain Division -- will see their dwell time shortened to accommodate the troop rotation, while at least one unit -- the 82nd Airborne Division -- will see its tour extended by three months. Also, a March 26 Marine Corps Times article reported that "[t]he Corps" recently “extended the deployments of 4,000 Marines to increase force levels” in Iraq.
  • On January 11, the Department of Defense announced that Minnesota's 1st Brigade Combat Team would have its tour extended by four months in order to accommodate Bush's troop increase. According to the Pentagon's press release, “The extension until August also affects more than 1,000 Guard members from Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Nebraska and other states who are deployed with the 1st Brigade. In all, about 4,000 Guard members are affected” by the 1st Brigade's tour extension.
  • During a February 27 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in which Defense Department officials discussed the need for emergency supplemental funding for the wars, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) noted that “under the president's proposed surge that is now occurring,” the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division “is going to deploy a couple weeks early, and the” 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, “which was deployed in June for a year, has now been extended.” On March 12, the 4th Stryker Brigade deployed for Iraq a month sooner than originally expected.
  • As The Indianapolis Star reported, on February 22, "[t]he Indiana National Guard announced ... that the state's largest call-up since World War II could head for Iraq in 2008 to bolster the surge of U.S. troops there." The Guard reportedly expects as many as 3,500 troops to be called to Iraq in 2008.
  • On February 27, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that “Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard, said that over the next 18 months some National Guard soldiers will be heading back to Iraq or Afghanistan sooner than first planned.” According to the Democrat-Gazette, “Pentagon planners have identified four National Guard brigades for consideration for early deployment if a second wave of surge troops is needed. Those are brigades in Ohio, Oklahoma and Indiana, along with Arkansas' 39th Infantry Brigade.” The article further noted that Bush's “surge has already resulted in extended deployment of some brigades in both Iraq and Afghanistan and early call-ups of others.”

Moreover, military officials have repeatedly warned that if Bush's troop increase continued through 2008, members of the armed forces could see their time at home shortened and their tours extended. A March 29 article in The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Virginia, reported that, according to Air Force Gen. Lance Smith, “Soldiers and Marines can expect longer tours of duty in Iraq and perhaps less time at home before redeploying if the current 'surge' of more than 20,000 additional troops has to be sustained into 2008,” adding that "[i]t would be very difficult" to extend the surge without such steps. According to The Virginian-Pilot, Smith added: " 'There is a high probability" that the military would have to break some of its guidelines for the interval between deployments if the surge goes beyond February" 2008. On March 15, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Shoomaker warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Army's deployment-to-dwell ratio was “not sustainable” in “a surge situation.” As a result, according to Shoomaker, the National Guard and the Army Reserve are “going to have to deploy more frequently than what we would like the normal situation.” A March 8 New York Times report noted that Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq, “recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008.” According to the Times, "[a]ny extension of the troop buildup would add to the strain on Army and Marine forces that have already endured years of continuous deployments."

From the April 4 New York Times article "Bush Blames Democrats for Impasse Over Iraq Bills":

Mr. Bush warned that a failure by Congress to approve the $100 billion he had requested for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would prolong some tours in Iraq and shorten time at home between tours for others. “That is unacceptable to me,” he said. “And I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

From the April 3 McClatchy wire report ”Bush Accuses Democrats of Hurting the Iraq War Effort":

In a wide-ranging news conference that also touched on a Supreme Court ruling, gasoline prices and Middle East diplomacy, Bush stressed his belief that Democrats are being “irresponsible” on Iraq. He repeated his threat to veto any bill that contains a troop-withdrawal date, warned that if war-funding legislation isn't signed by mid-April it could force cuts in equipment and training, and said further delay could force extended tours of duty for soldiers there.

[...]

“The bottom line is this,” the president said in the White House Rose Garden. “Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to.”