Robert Maguire's Library tagged gates →  View Popular

One compromise option put forward by the Pentagon, with the backing of Gates, would deploy an additional 30,000 to 35,000 U.S. troops -- fewer than McChrystal's optimal number to carry out his strategy -- and rely on NATO allies to make up the 5,000- to 10,000-troop difference. The third option, known by military planners as "the hybrid," would send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to shore up security in 10 to 12 major population areas. In the rest of the country, the military would adopt a counterterrorism strategy targeting forces allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, primarily in the north and east, with fighter jets, Predator drones and Special Operations troops that leave a light U.S. footprint on the ground. The military puts the annual cost of that option at $22 billion.

The most modest option calls for deploying an additional 10,000 to 15,000 troops. While under consideration at the White House, the proposal holds little merit for military planners because, after building bases to accommodate 10,000 or so additional soldiers and Marines, the marginal cost of adding troops beyond that figure would rise only slightly.

One compromise option put forward by the Pentagon, with the backing of Gates, would deploy an additional 30,000 to 35,000 U.S. troops -- fewer than McChrystal's optimal number to carry out his strategy -- and rely on NATO allies to make up the 5,000- to 10,000-troop difference. The third option, known by military planners as "the hybrid," would send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to shore up security in 10 to 12 major population areas. In the rest of the country, the military would adopt a counterterrorism strategy targeting forces allied with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, primarily in the north and east, with fighter jets, Predator drones and Special Operations troops that leave a light U.S. footprint on the ground. The military puts the annual cost of that option at $22 billion.

The most modest option calls for deploying an additional 10,000 to 15,000 troops. While under consideration at the White House, the proposal holds little merit for military planners because, after building bases to accommodate 10,000 or so additional soldiers and Marines, the marginal cost of adding troops beyond that figure would rise only slightly.

One pool of money at the center of the debate is what's called "1206" authority, which covers money, over $1 billion since 2006, for all equipping and training of other countries' security forces who are involved in the "overseas contingency operations" but not Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here, the Pentagon brass is said to be amenable to allowing the initial funding to go through State, provided they have some influence over its distribution, such as a "duel key" mechanism whereby they would be able to approve or veto expenditures.

For Murtha, his aversion to increased troops levels relates
to his ongoing battle with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates regarding the overall way forward for the armed
forces.

Gates and Murtha stand on opposite sides of a growing divide
in the defense community over how to deal with a military facing budgets that
are leveling off after years of huge increases. For Murtha, every
dollar spent on personnel is a dollar taken away from the procurement
programs he works to protect.

Murtha has resisted several of the major changes Gates
announced this year for large Pentagon procurement programs such as the F-22
fighter, the alternative engine for the F-35, the VH-71 presidential helicopter,
and many more.

Last month, Murtha bristled at Gates's announcement that he
wanted to add 30,000 new soldiers to the Army for only three years' time and
without requesting any additional funds from Congress.