You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Shift to Baghdad leaves western Iraq in limbo
2006-10-11
BAGHDAD, Iraq - For months, soldiers from the 172nd Stryker Brigade fought in riverside towns of western Iraq, trying to clamp off the flow of foreign fighters and suicide bombers that commanders said were terrorizing Baghdad.

Now hundreds of these same U.S. soldiers have been sent to deal with what U.S. officials say is an even greater threat - rising attacks between Sunnis and Shiites in the capital itself.

Left behind in the dusty towns along the Euphrates River in Anbar province are fewer U.S. troops - and fears that hard-won gains could be in jeopardy from a Sunni Arab insurgency that is far from defeated.

``Seeing the fruits of your labor lost is frustrating,'' said Capt. David Ramirez of the 4th Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, who was sent to Baghdad from western Iraq.

The shift from Anbar to Baghdad underscores the problems facing the overstretched, 140,000-strong U.S. military force in Iraq.

To secure Baghdad, the Army had to extend the tours of thousands of soldiers from two brigades, including hundreds from the 172nd who had already returned home only to be shipped back to Iraq.

``We do not have sufficient troop strength to secure the entire country simultaneously,'' Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. ``Trying to be strong everywhere will lead us to being strong nowhere.''

Krepinevich said he had personally recommended drawing down forces in western Anbar to U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Vice President Dick Cheney's staff.

Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, defended the new strategy, saying it was necessary to ``winning the main effort.''

Chiarelli insisted the troops were moved from the less violent parts of Anbar province.

However, four Marines were killed July 29 by a suicide truck bombing in Rawah even as U.S. soldiers were pulling out of that area.

Commanders in Anbar have long complained privately that they do not have enough troops to control their area, which is about the size of South Carolina and includes notoriously violent cities such as Haditha, Rawah and Haqlaniyah.

``Any time you reduce forces it's a concern,'' said Marine Lt. Col. Norm Cooling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 3rd Regiment which is scattered across western Anbar.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#20  Actually, I think the policy follows the public will, more or less lol. Exceptions, such as immigration, defy the simple solutions so go well beyond the average attention span and capacity for rational thought. So I'm saying it's that democracy thingy. The bully pulpit is largely drowned out by the fourth estate allies of the fifth column, methinks.

That is not to say that there will not be a great Hue & Cry™ when we get hit again, distracting the Great American Public from Suri's turds and Foley's IMs. Then they will turn on whomever is in the Big Chair and demand, uh, stuff. :-)
Posted by: .com   2006-10-11 23:44  

#19  The current Armed Forces size is adequate for the current policy of stalemate. So as long as Americans are willing to pursue democratic subversion of islamic dictatorships and are willing to tolerate demographic replacement at home and the occasional 9-11 type attacks, then all is fine.
Posted by: ed   2006-10-11 23:31  

#18  Well said, Frank G. You're on a roll tonight.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-10-11 23:20  

#17  as a father of one in bootcamp, I'd prefer they take the "quality" view rather than quantity, which tends to encourage mass assaults rather than intelligence-led battles. The draft is a bad thing poltically, and institutionally for our military. I'd rather my son serve with willing volunteer soldiers, properly trained and skilled, than a bunch of disgruntled misfits who'd rather be elsewhere. The Donks won't match their mouth with the necessary dollars to increase the military (especially in a job-growth economy), all their bluster is BS for PR consumption. "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting to duty"
Posted by: Frank G   2006-10-11 21:57  

#16  Would that even work, Shieldwolf? We're a long way from the army of grunts that fought WWII.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-11 21:11  

#15  Unless, of course, you are willing to accept WWII early casualty rates until the troops are sufficiently blooded to be truly effective. Or unless you are willing to split off half of the effectives from each existing divisions and splice in raw recruits to make up the difference. Which again leads to WWII casualty rates.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-10-11 20:40  

#14  Currently, the accepted time frame for ground up activation of a division is 3-5 years. Standard American division is 18,000 troops - more or less depending on structure. Add in all of the weapons, equipment, gear, trucks, APCs, helicopters, etc - standard projected costs is 5-7 billion dollars per division.
To effective double the American Army alone would require 9 full divisions with all of their equipment. So 162,000 men and 63 billion dollars to double the force. And that does not count consumables per year or individual pay and benefits. Plus 5 years lead time.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-10-11 20:06  

#13  If anyone deserves blame, it is Rumsfeld for not increasing the size of the Army and Marines in the aftermath of 9/11. He could have gotten it back then

Skilled infantrymen don't just come because you order them up. Even if Rumsfeld agreed with your assessment of need, increasing the number of skilled warfighters means pulling key NCOs out for training duty (among other things). It has significant logistics implications, and it might actually be pretty hard to do just on the basis of training ground availability for exercises, since in the 90s Congress in its wisdom imposed environmental controls on tank ranges etc.
Posted by: lotp   2006-10-11 18:45  

#12  Shield -
Actually, you can fund both the BS and the military - if you increase taxes. The Dems will increase the taxes, but they still won't fund the military. Heck, if they would, I might not be so opposed to the increased taxes.
Posted by: Glenmore   2006-10-11 18:39  

#11  Good post, Shieldwolf. Cuts to the bone.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-11 17:37  

#10  I call BULLSH*T! The reason that we don't have more troops is because every time Congress authorizes an increase to manpower levels in the military {and Congress has written into LAW how many people we can have in the military}, they deliberately fail to fund the personnel pay at the same time. So, all personnel expenses then come out of the Operating Budget, cutting down on weapons, munitions, and equipment. If the Demos in Congress were so damned concerned about troop numbers, why is it that each time there has been a troop number increase, it is the Demos that stonewall and vote against the personnel pay budget that would cover them? We are still living with the limits that Congress wrote into law in the 1990s, back when the Demos had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. And each time the defense budget is debated, the Demos scream about how much money is being "taken away from women and children to pay for bombs". We can easily field twice as many troops as we have today, we did it in the 1990s WITHOUT a draft. The major problem with accomplishing that is the budget will have to be modified back to the level of 1990, which will cut out a ton of pork barrel social services that a majority of Demos have made their rationale for elections.
So, in conclusion, Rumsfeld is not to blame for troop levels, Congress is; and so is every bastard sucking up the pork barrel spending, welfare fraud, and feel-good social engineering pablum fobbed off on the American public. Because, you can either fund the bullsh*t or the military, not both.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-10-11 17:19  

#9  The reason I opine that Rumsy has to go is because nobody wants to do what has to be done.Its either blanket bomb the suspect areas or it is Vietnam..........It has nothing to do with Democrats. It has to do with the diplomacy of appeasement. Appease the Sunnis so they will join, appease the Shia so Iran will not join.............We should consult the Kurds, since they know what they are doing...............
Posted by: Cleaque Omavimble7481   2006-10-11 16:17  

#8  While all the Foghorn Leghorn politicians keep arguing in Washbag, the Marines in Anbar are holding a "Blivit". (Ten pounds of $hit, in a five pound bag!)
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2006-10-11 16:06  

#7  I have no expertise, and little opinion of a situation I am not briefed on, but it's the daily attacks upon Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and our war efforts in Iraq that are the problem here at home. Whether mistakes have been made or not, I can say that mistakes have always been made and if I were king, I'd kill many many people until mortar and rocket attacks seised. War in a tuxedo just doesn't cut it. When we are backed against the wall, then, we'll fight like we mean to win, not tie or gain the upper hand. WIN, kill them all and sort through the dead bodies. There never was another way to win.
Rather than becomming brutal, I notice the tendency to preach retreat. Barf !
Posted by: wxjames   2006-10-11 15:48  

#6  Actually this is old news. This was mentioned in that assessment that was leaked to the press a few weeks ago.

We don't have enough troops to secure both Anbar and Baghdad, so we have to choose which one we want secure. We try to move troops back and forth fast enough to keep them from getting a firm foothold in any one place. This has been the problem from 2003.

Until the Iraqis have enough troops to take over, we will just be playing cat and mouse with these Jihadis.

If anyone deserves blame, it is Rumsfeld for not increasing the size of the Army and Marines in the aftermath of 9/11. He could have gotten it back then. Now the democrats are too committed to America's defeat in order to take over Congress.

Rumsfeld has a fighter pilot's infatuation with high tech gizmos, when what we need are more high skilled infantryman.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2006-10-11 15:29  

#5  It's like polishing a turd.....
Posted by: Bama Marine   2006-10-11 14:51  

#4  Tom...Not to sound sarcastic, but from where? South Korea? Shorter rotations? Any other answer would take 3 to 5 years to (at the earliest)to implement assuming Federal regulation governing the number of active troops in the standing army is expanded.
Posted by: anymouse   2006-10-11 13:51  

#3  There may well be issues, but Krepinivich is a suspect source. He is a long time Shinseki partisan and had his one-time National Defense Panel appointment in the Clinton administration. A political hack and a disgruntled extendee do not make authoritative sourcing, though they are par for the MSM. How 'bout somebody credible, like a milblogger on the scene?
Posted by: Nero   2006-10-11 11:42  

#2  'The shift from Anbar to Baghdad underscores the problems facing the overstretched, 140,000-strong U.S. military force in Iraq.'

Lets get some more troops in then?
Posted by: Tom   2006-10-11 11:35  

#1  If the House and Senate are lost to Dummocrats in November, it will be because there have been strategic errors by this administration from very early in this occupation. Sadly, it continues. Most voters now feel it's time to leave. Nothing has been accomplished from the Bully Pulpit to dissuade them. This ongoing stupidity is ruinous.
Posted by: SpecOp35   2006-10-11 11:02  

00:00