Current troop levels will remain in Iraq

[sfga6970]

Just saw this, any comments?

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Pentagon (news - web sites) officials have decided to keep the current level of American troops in Iraq (news - web sites) — about 135,000 — until the end of 2005 in an acknowledgment of long-term instability there.


AP Photo

AFP




Commanders had hoped to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to about 115,000 this summer. But that was before a surge of violence from Sunni and Shiite Muslim insurgents made April the deadliest month for the United States in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.



Several U.S. allies have decided to pull their forces out, most notably Spain, which had about 2,300 troops in one of the most volatile areas of south-central Iraq.



Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday ordered about 10,000 active-duty Army soldiers and Marines to prepare to ship out to Iraq in the next few months.



They will help replace 20,000 soldiers in the Army's 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Calvary Regiment. They were being kept in Iraq for as long as three months past their one-year tours of duty.



Another 10,000 active-duty troops will be called up to fill out the replacement forces, Rumsfeld said.



Keeping such high troop levels in Iraq will further strain a military already stretched thin. All or part of nine of the Army's ten divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan (news - web sites). Some analysts and retired generals say the Pentagon has to either expand the military or reduce its worldwide commitments.



"I think we can handle the tempo," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton Schwartz, director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff. "It is demanding, no question about it. But I haven't come to the conclusion that we need to grow the force yet."



The troops coming into Iraq will be more heavily armed than the forces they are replacing. They'll arrive with more tanks, armored personnel carriers and armored Humvees, said Schwartz and Army Lt. Gen. Richard Cody.



"The mission remains essentially the same. It's security and stability," Schwartz told reporters at the Pentagon.



If security improves in Iraq, some troops could be sent home early or kept home longer, Schwartz said. On the other hand, he added, "if more is needed, we'll make adjustments."



Many of the troops being sent to Iraq have served there or in Afghanistan before. They will return to a country where ambushes and roadside bombs are more common and the political situation is unstable, with the United States set to hand limited power to a yet-unnamed Iraqi caretaker government on July 1.



The active-duty units ordered to Iraq on Tuesday include the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y. The Marine units are the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit from Camp Pendleton, Calif., and the 24th MEU from Camp Lejeune, N.C.



The 10th Mountain Division has units in Iraq and Afghanistan. About 25,000 Marines already are in Iraq, many of them in and around the volatile city of Fallujah.



Rumsfeld also approved sending 37,000 support troops to Iraq on Tuesday as part of the scheduled rotation of forces. Most of those troops are in National Guard and Army Reserve units.



A U.S.-based Army airborne brigade will be ready starting Friday to handle any emergency, Cody said.



Cody said commanders have decided which units they want to use for the main force in Iraq during the next year, but all of the active-duty units have not yet been notified.







Three enhanced separate brigades from the National Guard already are preparing to go to Iraq: The 256th from Louisiana, the 116th from Idaho and the 278th from Tennessee.

Keeping 20,000 more troops in Iraq will require more money, Schwartz said. Pentagon officials say they have not decided whether to ask Congress for additional money before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

[kruser79]

You know, this really wouldn't be an issue if we were still a million-man force. We're stuck right now because of the need. We're not going to be able to keep this up though. Something is going to have to give. We either need more soldiers in at the bottom (which isn't going to do us any good for a couple of years from now), or we need to pull some forces back from other areas of the globe. (Btw, why are we still in Bosnia?)

[sfga6970]

Originally Posted by kruser79

You know, this really wouldn't be an issue if we were still a million-man force. We're stuck right now because of the need. We're not going to be able to keep this up though. Something is going to have to give. We either need more soldiers in at the bottom (which isn't going to do us any good for a couple of years from now), or we need to pull some forces back from other areas of the globe. (Btw, why are we still in Bosnia?)

I agree with you, we are streched too thin for the current commitments. Perhaps a reshuffling of troops from other areas that are not as critical might help. But the bottom line is that our forces, although well trained and effective, are not available in sufficient numbers to do the missions we have them committed to. The recruiting and training time frame is too long to give relief to our currently deployed units. As far as I am concerned, Bosnia should be turned over to the EU NATO forces exclusively.

[kruser79]

You're right Paul, and I think the reshuffling that you speak of could probably start right there in Bosnia. Let the EU take over Bosnia and Kosovo both. That would free up quite a few.

The problem they're faced with right now, is units returning from OIF need time to refit, rebuild, and flat-assed recoup. Units prepping to go need the time for train-up, so they're taken out of their regular training rotations. Then you have the units already in theater. As far as the numbers go, the percentage of units not in one of those categories above, is dangerously low.