Iraq sniper attacks overestimated

[CommunityEditor]

The Pentagon, which has asked Congress for more than $1 billion in emergency spending to combat a growing threat of sniper attacks in Iraq, has overstated the scope and number of such attacks, its own records show.

In last week’s $1.4 billion request, the Pentagon said sniper attacks have quadrupled in the past year and, if unchecked, the attacks could eclipse roadside bombs as the top killer of U.S. troops. However, the rate of sniper attacks has dropped slightly in 2007 and fallen dramatically in the past four months, according to military records given to USA Today.

Pentagon officials acknowledged the mistake Monday after questions about the data were raised by USA Today.

“The term quadrupled will be removed from the justification because it is simply incorrect,” said Dave Patterson, deputy undersecretary of defense.

The Pentagon does not release the number of troops killed by snipers. Improvised explosive devices have killed about 1,600 U.S. troops, more than half of all combat deaths since the war began in 2003.

The money requested to combat sniper attacks would buy equipment such as sensors to locate snipers and better body armor to protect troops from attacks, Patterson said.

Patterson said Pentagon officials were reviewing the entire $42 billion supplemental budget request sent to Congress last week to see if it includes other errors.

“We don’t want to misrepresent anything,” he said.

Snipers remain a significant threat, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. “Despite the erroneous characterization in the supplemental request, the threat is very real and needs to be combated.”

Snipers “have had an adverse psychological effect on both coalition forces and the Iraqi civilian populace,” the budget request stated.

Despite the inaccurate information, Congress will likely approve the extra money, said Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution.

“You’d like to feel that the Pentagon is thorough in its methodology and honest in its assessment of the threat,” O’Hanlon said. “Nobody will begrudge them spending on a real threat. But we also need to avoid rubber-stamp syndrome where any expense is OK.”

The Pentagon has been deploying countersniper technology this year, including remotely fired weapons that allow troops to stay inside vehicles and avoid exposure to gunfire.



Article: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...nipers_071030/

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

The Pentagon, which has asked Congress for more than $1 billion in emergency spending to combat a growing threat of sniper attacks in Iraq, has overstated the scope and number of such attacks, its own records show.

In last week’s $1.4 billion request, the Pentagon said sniper attacks have quadrupled in the past year and, if unchecked, the attacks could eclipse roadside bombs as the top killer of U.S. troops. However, the rate of sniper attacks has dropped slightly in 2007 and fallen dramatically in the past four months, according to military records given to USA Today.

Pentagon officials acknowledged the mistake Monday after questions about the data were raised by USA Today.

“The term quadrupled will be removed from the justification because it is simply incorrect,” said Dave Patterson, deputy undersecretary of defense.

The Pentagon does not release the number of troops killed by snipers. Improvised explosive devices have killed about 1,600 U.S. troops, more than half of all combat deaths since the war began in 2003.

The money requested to combat sniper attacks would buy equipment such as sensors to locate snipers and better body armor to protect troops from attacks, Patterson said.

Patterson said Pentagon officials were reviewing the entire $42 billion supplemental budget request sent to Congress last week to see if it includes other errors.

“We don’t want to misrepresent anything,” he said.

Snipers remain a significant threat, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. “Despite the erroneous characterization in the supplemental request, the threat is very real and needs to be combated.”

Snipers “have had an adverse psychological effect on both coalition forces and the Iraqi civilian populace,” the budget request stated.

Despite the inaccurate information, Congress will likely approve the extra money, said Michael O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution.

“You’d like to feel that the Pentagon is thorough in its methodology and honest in its assessment of the threat,” O’Hanlon said. “Nobody will begrudge them spending on a real threat. But we also need to avoid rubber-stamp syndrome where any expense is OK.”

The Pentagon has been deploying countersniper technology this year, including remotely fired weapons that allow troops to stay inside vehicles and avoid exposure to gunfire.



Article: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...nipers_071030/

So the Pentagon learns of a "mistake" in their request for billions of dolars AFTER the press makes inquiries about it. Why am I not surprised?
This rings like the Tilman case, but I guess that in these times when the president lies on TV everyday, this is just another day at the office.
And yes, to all of you who will jump on me and call a Bush hater, yes I am. In fact, my mission in life is to hate this moron until he is taken away by a couple of guys in white coats. And not to Crawford.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Remember, if "the enemy" is X strong then you can get $X in financing, but if "the enemy" is 4X strong then you can get $4X in financing.

Remember too, the people who are going to hand out the bucks have absolutely no idea if "the enemy" is X strong or if they are 4X strong - you have to tell them, and if they don't believe you you can accuse them of being a bunch of "unAmerican Terrorist Appeasers Who DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS".

And that means that they are likely to have to get a real job when their bid for re-election fails.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

Remember, if "the enemy" is X strong then you can get $X in financing, but if "the enemy" is 4X strong then you can get $4X in financing.

Remember too, the people who are going to hand out the bucks have absolutely no idea if "the enemy" is X strong or if they are 4X strong - you have to tell them, and if they don't believe you you can accuse them of being a bunch of "unAmerican Terrorist Appeasers Who DON'T SUPPORT THE TROOPS".

And that means that they are likely to have to get a real job when their bid for re-election fails.

You mean we are goijng to have that much unemployment?

Is the money going to be sent in pallets of cash or with a bank draft? I bet the Iraqi government wants it in pallets.

Where do you think they got the title for the series "The X Files"? From the Pentagon budget, but of course with inflation it must be 4X.