After only just recently extending combat tours from 12 months to 15 months, the Army is again looking at extending tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to The Associated Press (via Military.com):

The Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in Iraq if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring 2008.

. . .

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said, “If the future were to require such an option, it would be the last option on the list.”

Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq war commander, suggested Sunday that conditions on the ground might not be stable enough by September to justify a drop in force levels, and he predicted stabilizing Iraq could take a decade. Earlier this year, Bush ordered the deployment of some 30,000 additional troops as part of a massive U.S.-led security push around Baghdad and the western Anbar province.

Two things about the last paragraph:

First, well, duh, of course Iraq won’t be stabilized only two-and-a-half months into the new counterinsurgency strategy (nickname: “the surge”). I’d also like to note that Gen. Petraeus subtly pointed out in a press conference last week that he understands the lack of troops (stretched too thin) to maintain the current force levels in Iraq and the unwillingness of Congress to continue to support — or even increase — the current number of troops deployed. Indeed, as a moderate who leans Democratic, I find it hypocritical that the donkeys are refusing to respond to ground commanders’ requests for men and materiel just as they criticized President Bush of doing during the 2004 elections.

Second, while we may need to keep troops in-country for quite a while, I tend to feel that domestic pressures will soon require a considerable drawdown in the number of troops deployed to Iraq. Army intellectuals have already started planning an Iraq Plan B, which is based on the assumption that American public opinion and domestic politics will require a significantly reduced presence in the country.

Back to the article:

When asked by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., whether maintaining the force buildup would affect Soldiers’ 15-month combat schedules, [Acting Army Secretary Pete] Geren said he was unsure and cited “numerous options” available, including a “different utilization of the Guard and Reserve” and relying on the other services for help.

. . .

Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that the service is reviewing other options, including relying more heavily on Army reservists or Navy and Air Force personnel, so as not to put more pressure on a stretched active-duty force.

This assumption — continuing in lieu of taskings of Air Force and Naval personnel — may run into a few problems. As I noted earlier, in lieu of taskings aren’t very popular with the Air Force brass. And, remember, it’s already been reported that the Army National Guard and Reserves are approaching becoming a “broken force.”

It will be interesting to see how this debate — and the planning it sparks — develops as we approach September and beyond.