| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dem withdraw plans can't work for Logistic reasons... |
| 2007-10-04 |
| Note that: "the evacuation of 162,000 troops in 23 ground combat brigades and millions of tons of equipment would take some 20 months" ergo - all to all the Dems saying pull out today...IT IS NOT POSSIBLE! Watching them drive by at 30 mph would take 75 days. Bumper-to-bumper, they would stretch from New York City to Denver. That's how U.S. Air Force logistical expert Lenny Richoux described the amount of vehicles that would have to be shipped back from Iraq when the current deployment is over. These include, among others, 10,000 flatbed trucks, 1,000 tanks and 20,000 Humvees. Even in an emergency, Col. Richoux said in Defense News, the evacuation of 162,000 troops in 23 ground combat brigades and millions of tons of equipment would take some 20 months. Military shipping containers, end to end, would stretch from New York City to the gates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The main resupply route for convoys that runs 344 miles from Kuwait (skirting Basra to the north) to Baghdad is already under the constant threat of hit-and-run insurgency attacks, including improvised explosive devices. Driving empty on their way back to pick up another load in Kuwait, convoys are just as vulnerable. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the military has some 300,000 "heavy" items that would have to be shipped back, such as ice-cream machines that churn out different flavors upon request at a dozen bases throughout the California-sized country. And before it can be loaded onto ships, equipment has to be scrubbed clean to conform to U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations. The United States maintains some 200 wash points in Kuwait. Helicopters have to be shrink-wrapped. Clearly any major withdrawal from Iraq would have to be a phased operation, and some of the equipment would have to be destroyed or transferred to the new Iraqi army. Since the first Gulf War (1990-91), the U.S. Military Sealift Command has acquired a fleet of 18 large, roll-on/roll-off ships, each nearly the size of an aircraft carrier, capable of carrying more than 300,000 square feet of cargo. Eight of these ships are normally assigned to MSC's Afloat Prepositioning Ship Squadron, loaded with Army equipment and supplies in the Indian Ocean theater ready to meet up with troops flown in to an emergency situation in the Gulf region. MSC cargo ships make regular runs to Iraq from San Diego and Jacksonville, Fla. For the first two years of the war, units were rotated in and out of theater with all their equipment. Thus, the 5,200-strong 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment's equipment -- 300 armored vehicles, 57 aircraft, 900 trucks and Humvees -- made the trip from Fort Carson to Kuwait three times before the Pentagon changed back to the Gulf War I and Vietnam War system of leaving the heavy stuff in place for the incoming replacement unit. The constant movement of some 100 freighters and thousands of railroad cars has cost almost $30 billion. After a year of use in Iraq's desert climate, the Army's 70-ton M1A2 tank morphs from an awesome fighting machine to a repair nightmare as sand infiltrates everything down to electronics. These can only be overhauled stateside where 25-ton turrets can be lifted off the rest of the tank. Major overhauls cannot be done either in the field or in rear echelon bases in Kuwait. Later ... "The time for half-measures and experiments is over," they argue. Now's the time "for a logistically sound strategic redeployment." Ignored was how the possible bombing of Iran before President Bush leaves the White House would affect the timetable. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #6 The US Army could always redeploy to Washington, DC. I'm sure there's a need for 168,000 troops there. Of course, no other traffic of any kind would be able to move AROUND them, which would be a feature, not a bug. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-10-04 23:27 |
| #5 You fools are thinking about an orderly retreat. The Donks aren't thinking about supply routes.... they're thinking about routs. Run Baby Run! |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-10-04 17:20 |
| #4 This reminds me of that wacky, hubris-filled media statement by an insurgent group that was posted here weeks ago, with the conditions set for the US withdrawal being that the american soldiers had to leave the country carrying only their rifle, and that any kind of building, vehicle and heavy weaponry had to be left in place for the new mudjahideen army to collect. Total, abject surrender, nothing less. See? If the dems conform to this, the withdrawal can be made very quickly! |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-10-04 16:33 |
| #3 3dc, you should always feel free to comment. I like your withdrawal plan but would change the direction: I'd withdraw through Syria to Tarsus and Latakia, nice ports on the Med that can take our big ships. I'd donate some of the equipment we don't need to the Iraqi Army, a little to the Lebanese Army (personal delivery via the Bekaa Valley, of course), and some of the choicer bits to the Israelis -- COD at the Shebaa Farms. Just a thought. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-10-04 15:06 |
| #2 I like your thinking, 3.... :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-10-04 14:56 |
| #1 I shouldn't comment like this on an article I posted but for the sake of a good time by all..... We could strategically withdraw from Iraq in a forward manner slowly through IRAN and then link up with NATO forces in Afghanistan. From there the withdraw could proceed through Waristan and NWFP with a link up with Indian forces in Islamabad. Then all could be present for the |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-10-04 13:45 |