| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010 |
| 2006-10-12 |
| For planning purposes, the Army is gearing up to keep current troop levels in Iraq for another four years, a new indication that conditions there are too unstable to foresee an end to the war. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, which is done far in advance to prepare the right mix of combat units for expected deployments. He noted that it is easier to scale back later if conditions allow, than to ramp up if they don't. There are now 141,000 U.S. troops there. At a Pentagon news conference, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said that as recently as July he had expected to be able to recommend a substantial reduction in U.S. forces by now. But that plan was dropped as sectarian violence in Baghdad escalated. While arguing that progress is still being made toward unifying Iraq's fractured political rivalries and stabilizing the country, Casey also said the violence amounts to "a difficult situation that's likely to remain that way for some time." Appearing with Casey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he and other senior Pentagon officials are still studying how the military might keep up the current pace of Iraq deployments without overtaxing the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the conflict. Rumsfeld said one option is to make more use of the Air Force and Navy for work that normally is done by soldiers and Marines. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday that the advance planning Schoomaker described was an appropriate cautionary approach. However, he added, the Pentagon should increase the overall size of the military to reduce stress on troops repeatedly sent into combat. "I applaud the new realism but I think they also have to recognize that this (war) is going to put a huge stress on our forces," said Reed, a former Army Ranger. Reed and other Democrats have called on President Bush to start bringing home troops within a year to force the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for security. At his news conference, Rumsfeld was asked whether he bears responsibility for what has gone wrong in Iraq or if the military commanders there are to blame. "Of course I bear responsibility," he replied in apparent exasperation. "My Lord, I'm secretary of defense. Write it down." In recent months the Army has shown signs of strain, as Pentagon officials have had to extend the Iraq deployments of two brigades to bolster security in Baghdad and allow units heading into the country to have at least one year at home before redeploying. The Army is finding that the amount of time soldiers enjoy between Iraq tours has been shrinking this year. In the case of a brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, its deployment to Iraq was delayed by about six weeks because it otherwise would have had only 11 months to prepare instead of the minimum 12 months. As a result, the unit it was going to replace has been forced to stay beyond its normal 12-month deployment. In separate remarks to reporters, Gen. Richard Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, said soldiers need more than 12 months between deployments to Iraq so they can do a full range of combat training and complete the kinds of educational programs that enable the Army to grow a fully mature officer corps. That kind of noncombat experience is necessary "so that we don't erode and become an Army that only can fight a counterinsurgency," Cody said. He added that North Korea's announced nuclear test "reminds us all that we may not just be in a counterinsurgency fight and we have to have full-spectrum capability." |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #13 To the man with a=only a hammer, every problem is a nail. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-12 20:16 |
| #12 Well, part of that mission is clearly filled by the MPs. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-12 19:58 |
| #11 Also not clear infantry is what we need. We don't have any trouble winning wars with the combat soldiers we have. It's occupation, peacekeeping and civil affairs that we need more of. More infantry may cost a lot more to equip and train than is necessary for these tasks and it may be the wrong kind of training. We need to recognize we are in the nation building business. We are going to be in Iraq a lot longer. We should get the right kind of personnel, possibly not even Army, in place or pull out now and just send in the rifles the next time we need to kill some people. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-12 19:33 |
| #10 No one here is saying not to take into account other congencies. But at least have a plan for victory that doesn't depend on the cooperation of our enemies. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, the first priority is to fight the war we are in, not the wars we wish we were in. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-12 19:25 |
| #9 Y'all are thinking about divisions, but the brigade is now the deployable unit of action. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-12 19:19 |
| #8 We have more than one problem to solve - so sizing the force for only islamic terrorism is the wrong approch - its what got us where we are now. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-12 19:16 |
| #7 Dammit ed - there you go placing the horse before the cart again..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-10-12 14:27 |
| #6 Agreed OS. Another Division would really ease the strain. How about a Division with a Stryker BDE, a Ranger Regt. and an SF Group. I think a division of Marines is needed also. The last thing we need is more fighter jets. What I found interesting was Cody's remark about needing non-combat time to develop and mature our leaders. Of all problems to have in the military this is a good one. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-10-12 14:02 |
| #5 Before enlarging the Army, I wish the US leadership had a plan to actually defeat the islamics and then size the force to accomplish that task. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-12 13:49 |
| #4 However, I do agree that we need to have a larger military, especially the Army - and we need to commit to traingin and maintaining about a division more than we have right now. The world is a dangerous place, and you'd rather have a bullet left over than come up jsut one short. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-12 13:26 |
| #3 First 3 words... For planning purposes Seriously misleading headline! |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-12 13:25 |
| #2 I hope we have troops there for a long, long time. Iraq would make a superb place as the HQ of the US Africa Command. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-10-12 11:28 |
| #1 Once again, a misquote for readership. Gen. Schoomaker said it is easier to plan for troops to stay and pull them out when appropriate than plan on pulling them out (read, timetable) and having to bring them back. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-12 00:52 |