| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Report: U.S. May Call National Guard for Iraq Duty |
| 2003-07-17 |
| Here’s the divisions. NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) could start a call-up of as many as 10,000 U.S. National Guard soldiers by this winter to bolster forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and offset a lack of troops from allies, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. One senior U.S. defense official, asked by the Journal if he had ever seen the Army stretched so thin, said: "Not in my 31 years" of military service. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to sign off later this week on a plan that would set up rotations to relieve Marine and U.S. Army soldiers stationed in Iraq, the newspaper said, citing a Pentagon official. Twenty-one of the Army’s 33 active-duty combat brigades are already in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea (news - web sites) and the Balkans, the paper said. Three other brigades cannot currently be sent abroad, leaving nine brigades, or 45,000 troops, as relief for deployed soldiers, the report said. Some of those forces are being held back in case they are needed near North Korea (news - web sites) or in Afghanistan, further limiting U.S. options in Iraq, the Journal said. I would turn over the Balkans completely to the Europeans. If they want want them, leave anyway. |
| Posted by:11A5S |
| #6 Regardless of American national pride, in the first Korean conflict most of the units and most of the casualties were those of the South Korean Army. Korea II would not be any different. This time around they're starting with a real ROK army, equiped and trained [and well fed]. The last time the NKPA was largely cadred and manned by Korean veterans of the Chinese Civil War and well equipped. This time they don't have the edge they had in 51. So what and how much could the Pentagon put in place that would make a significant difference? If the South Koreans break, highly unlikely, we won't have enough forces to put in place to stop much. If the North Koreans break, most likely, it will be up to the South Koreans to decide the next move more than the US. Outside air, comm, intel, and logistics, the American forces would be as much in the way as a help except to pump up the morale of those defending their own homes. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-7-17 8:35:12 PM |
| #5 There are 15 separate brigades and 8 divisions in the National Guard. It'd take about six months to bring them up to snuff, but it could be done. It's going to be a big budget outlay and the political impact is going to be huge. Plus, the NG and Reg. Army are like cats and dogs, they don't play well together. Also, some NG units have already been cannibalized for "force protection." Finally, it's only a temporary solution, but then what solution isn't. Still, between the NG and the Individual Ready Reserve (folks who have only been off active duty for a few years and have thus retained a lot of skills and who still have a contractual obligation to serve if called up), you could meet the manpower requirements. I just don't think that any politico has the huevos to do the call up. As for Chiraq and Schroeder, I'd be willing to make concessions to them in the short term. Defeat the main enemy first, then come back and take care of that dynamic duo. I just can't see the EU ever being a real threat to the US. A pain in the ass, yes. A threat, no. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-17 4:25:29 PM |
| #4 to get chirac and schroeder to help you inthe balkans, when everybody knows its to free up troops for Iraq, youre gonna have to make some concessions. And you still have an American (and Brit/coalition of willing) face on the occupation. Make slightly (?) more concessions and get French, Germans, Indians, and Pakistanis on the ground in iraq - youve done alot more to make youre life easier (assuming you can avoid somalia type mistakes) |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:49:29 PM |
| #3 i sympathize with your view on tax cuts, but im not sure that it makes much difference in the short term. Even if you increased the defense budget more than we are already doing, how long would it take to ramp up recruitment, to train and equip a new division? (although we could use re-up bonuses to deal with retention) The crunch time is in the next 12 to 18 months (i guess that makes me an optimist on Iraq :)) - I dont think you can materially change the force structure that fast. I continue to think the best way to handle this is to swallow hard and do a deal with the weasels. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:46:35 PM |
| #2 LH: I agree with you. There is a long term danger of ruining the armed forces in the same manner as we did in Viet Nam (see Shelby Stanton's The Rise and Fall of an American Army for an excellent history). There is a short term danger of another conflict rearing its ugly head and leaving us completely unable to meet the manpower needs. We may have really reached a point where we need to start making sacrifices. Can we have guns and butter (or tax cuts) when we are fighting a war? It didn't work during Viet Nam. One could argue that it won't work now. As to the Balkans, I think the price we pay depends a lot on how we position the withdrawal. If we position it as another FU to the Europeans the political price will be very high. If we position it as a gesture of reconciliation (give Chirac and Schroeder what they say they want, a chance to prove their conception of "European idea") then the price may be small. Even if the Euros balk, we come out looking like the good guy. We are, after all, just trying to help them realize their hopes and ambitions of Europe as a major power. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-17 3:23:07 PM |
| #1 thats only 2 brigades. even if we pay the political cost of leaving the Balkans, thats only one more brigade. So we rotate the Marines out, to be replaced by about 8000 spanish, italians, poles, danes, etc, plus iraqi police. 3rd ID comes out to be replaced by 1st Cav. Then sometime in winter the national guard goes in, and 101st comes out. (plus the armored cav regiments?) Still leaves us somewhat shorthanded. with 1st cav, 1st armored, 173rd AB, 4th ID, and one brigade of 1ts ID in Iraq. Oh, and we need to rotate the brigade from 82nd AB out of afghan. We have 2nd ID in Skor, and 25th ID plus a Marine Div as backup for Korea. Meanwhile is 10th Mountain "recovered" (see sensing's blog) from Afghan? Cause the remaining Marines (plus the remaining brigades from 1st ID) are the only fresh divisions left for any contingency (other than units designated for Korea). Oh and we already have close to 200,000 army NG mobilized, doing everything from force protection to border patrol. I'd say we're a tad overstretched. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:06:08 PM |