| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Army May Keep Forces in Iraq Through ’06 |
| 2004-01-29 |
| The Army’s top general said Wednesday he is making plans based on the possibility that the Army will be required to keep tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq through 2006. I think we all knew that -- we’ll probably have troops there in 2020. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee that "for planning purposes" he has ordered his staff to consider how the Army would replace the force that is now rotating into Iraq with another force of similar size in 2005 - and again in 2006. Stretched by commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, the Army has used emergency authority to go beyond the limit set by Congress on the number of soldiers who can be in uniform, Schoomaker said. He said the Army now is about 11,000 soldiers above the 482,400 limit and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has authorized the service to temporarily exceed the limit by as much as 30,000. Schoomaker said he was opposed to Congress passing legislation to permanently expand the size of the Army, mainly because it would be too costly. "I’m adamant that that is not the way to go," the Army chief said. Hate to disagree with a smart, good guy, but I’d work on creating a couple of new brigades of light infantry and some more civil affairs units. And perhaps some additional combat support in the active duty forces. Even while the Iraq war continues, the Pentagon is planning a new offensive in the two-year-old Afghanistan campaign to try to stop remnants of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida terrorist network. Orders have been issued to prepare equipment and supplies, though the operation will not necessarily require additional troops in the region, where about 11,000 Americans are still deployed, a defense official said on condition of anonymity. Northwest Frontier, here we come? Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was concerned that the requirement for large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may break the Army. "This does not mean we should pull back from our commitments," Skelton said. "We can’t unring the bell. We’re there. We’ve got to win. We’ve got to stabilize that country," he said of Iraq. "We cannot afford that to evolve into a civil war." Here’s a smart Democrat. Why can’t he run for president? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #29 Why not hire Gurkha soldiers. 3 countries already do (might be 4 - not sure if HK still has Gurkhas). By all accounts they are excellent soldiers and there are far more applicants than positions by a factor of 70 as I recall. If this is politically unacceptable in the USA then do a deal with the Brits to recruit a few more Gurkha regiments. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-1-29 7:17:44 PM |
| #28 LH, currently many liberal arts colleges are set up to graduate classes of American radicals not American citizens, but that shouldn't stop things. I think the that the FBI rarely accepts applicants fresh out of college, preferring to staff up with candidates that have gained some life experience. I am predisposed for using "new" Americans for this type of work. Most 1st or 2nd generation immigrants have a very good understanding of what things about America are an improvement with repsect to other places. I would place this activity some place else although I am not strictly a State Department basher. The ambassadors in Cuba and Venezuela are doing a bang-up job in my opinion. Solving what problems do exist in State - that lady that wants to express Saudi visas is certainly one for the dungeon - doesn't mean we need to hire a bunch of moronic |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-29 3:18:19 PM |
| #27 Rather than a "nation building corps" I would like to see special ops command (SOCOM) raised to the status of a fifth branch of service. We don't have the resources to start up a nation building corps. SOCOM already has the resources to build nations: Operators to hunt down bad guys hiding in the wood and to kill them. PYSOPS guys to psyche them out. Civil affairs units to kick off school building and sewer digging until the operators can kill enough bad guys to settle things down. Then you can bring in the NGOs and civilian contractors -- also under SOCOM command and control. If things get hairy, then you bring in light infantry, mech infantry, MPs or Armor as the situation demands. These folks are always task organized under SOCOM command. By doing this we have the guys who can be either killers or diplomats in charge; we make the best use of limited resources; we keep the guys (soldiers and marines)who only know how to kill under SOCOM operator control; and we maintain the smallest footprint necessary to keep the peace. The way I envision this happening is in the initial phase of operations, the killers (Army, USMC) are in charge. After the destruction of enemy main force units, you turn the operation over to the experts. Remaining Army/USMC units are now under the control of a SOCOM general and they are phased out as the bitter enders are killed off. The end state should be rebuilding efforts firmly in civilian hands; a national army/police force that can deal with riots and small scale uprisings, and a handful of operators in country who can keep harrassing the bitter enders until the last one is dead or walks into town, lays down his arms, changes his name and starts doing something productive. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-1-29 3:11:33 PM |
| #26 SH - good points I dont see the Nation building corps as being manned by granola eating Peace Corps types. These will be people prepared to undergo weapons training, "hard" political science, etc. CIA manages to recruit and vet people who are college grads with international interests who are not softies - why cant that be done elsewhere, on a larger scale? I udnerstand theres reticence here about the Foreign Service as a model - aside from some selectivity based on the mission, i think the day to day needs would shape this force differently - one reason for the "softness" of the FS is that in most cases their JOB is to make nice with the govt to which they represent us = their PROFESSION is to accommodate - i dont think its so much do to any personal failings. People recruited similarly, but whose profession is to nation build would act differently. Not sure nationbuilders should be part of Department of State though. Their logistical requirements would be more analogous to military. Id see them more as seperate service within DoD, as different from Army as Army is from USMC. The real argument against is lack of flexibility? What if we face a BIG opponent, and need more COMBAT forces, not nation builders? Wouldnt we be better off with more light infantry divs rather than Nationbuilders? Depends on your view of likely future nation building needs vs future combat needs. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-29 1:55:08 PM |
| #25 Shipman, I ain't sure what a "Letter of Reprisal" is but I shore like the sound of it. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-1-29 1:38:20 PM |
| #24 Languages... we need to reduce our reliance on locals as translators. If we're not already doing it, we need to set up big incentives for developing language skills amongst the troops, and make the ability to speak multiple languages a requirement for advancement. The choice of languages needs to be organized a bit so that useful languages are chosen. We don't want 90% to learn French or Spanish, for example, but in the future a squad shouldn't go out on patrol without at least one member who can speak and understand more of the local lingo than "Hands up" and "Stop"... |
| Posted by: snellenr 2004-1-29 12:49:09 PM |
| #23 Part of a editorial from The Progress Report: Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured. "Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A. Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan. In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. Need to pass this bill if for nothing more than the fun of watching lefties heads explode. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-29 12:46:35 PM |
| #22 what happens when this nice new Iraqi goverent we're creating in June turns around and says "it's been grand but please go?" I suspect the White House (Bush or whoever) will happily oblige, pack up and leave. It provides for a suitable exit strategy. Especially if these guerilla tactics and exploding roadsides continue indefinately. Kuwait is only a hop-skip away, and with a permanent base there, it wouldn't be too difficult to keep a lid on things. With US troops being a magnet for jihadis and exploding cars, I don't see the point of them being in Iraq if they're not actively engaged in combat. If you're not piling up dead jihadi bodies, then get out of the way and let the economists argue about how to get Iraq back on its feet. If ordinary Iraqis can't blame the US for their woes anymore, maybe they'll start pounding the jihadis themselves. This is of course assuming the new Iraqi government will be a normal one, unlike the Iranian Talibanies. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-1-29 12:42:18 PM |
| #21 Letters of Marque are so so yesterday, the Constitution also allows the Congress to grant Letters of Reprisal. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-29 12:18:01 PM |
| #20 Also, what happens when this nice new Iraqi goverent we're creating in June turns around and says "it's been grand but please go?" Not going to happen. Sunnis need protection from the Shiites and Kurds. Shiites need protection from well-funded Baathists*. Christians and Kurds need protection from everyone else. The mistake here is in looking at Iraq as a monolith. The fact is that we are the ultimate guarantor of the security of Iraq's various peoples. Iraqis may look alike, but they certainly neither think alike nor have entirely common interests. And these are life-and-death issues for average Iraqis, which is why, from the Iraqi standpoint, the US will remain the indispensable country for decades. * The Gulf states will pick up the slack if Iraq looks like it's about to become a Shia theocracy or a country with imperial ambitions. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-29 12:16:29 PM |
| #19 Strategic overstretch is strategic overstretch. Also, what happens when this nice new Iraqi goverent we're creating in June turns around and says "it's been grand but please go?" Sorry if I'm getting tired of Wil E. Coyote Syndrome. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2004-1-29 11:55:04 AM |
| #18 Land Based Letters of Marque LOL! That's a good one! Yar! We be land-lubbing privateers! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul in Teller, AK 2004-1-29 11:46:44 AM |
| #17 3DC, I suggest that my favorite canine would be an effect alternative for land based letters of marque. Please turn up your volume before visiting his house. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-29 11:33:03 AM |
| #16 Zang, LH I think that the Regional Develpoment Teams in Afghanistan are kind of the same concept. If these teams work out, it would be great to hold them together under a permanent command structure. At that point they could be stiffened with engineering, police and civil affairs assets as needed. I would prefer to recruit local linguists, unless the co-ops for state department can be vetted for attitude. For instance, people with a private overiding agenda can continue to flip-off America locally. Let's not send embittered malcontents off to other countries on PR missions. Most countries hate us enough already. I would prefer a Ghurka like force with retired military working under contract to supplement security forces. Using locals is asking to be infiltrated. Using regular army or marine forces for peace-keeping would tend to dull the tip of the spear as it were. Plus, civilian casualties usually result as well. There was an instacne awhile back where some regular army forces were used to patrol our Southern border. They ended up tracking down and eliminating some farm kid who was out at night hunting. I don't know much about the current Peace Corps and USAID so I can't speak to how they might be incorprated. My impression of USAID is that it operates as a State Dept front for transferring taxpayer funds to NGO's that are generally anti-American. This process allows the US to do good in the world without infringing on the rights of others to continue hating us. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-29 11:27:58 AM |
| #15 I wonder if Excutive Options is available for some subcontracting work outside of Africa. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2004-1-29 11:22:59 AM |
| #14 Actually Rwandan, we occupied Japan & Germany prior to Israeli state. Marshall, McArthur all dealt w/reconstruction of former enemies who later became allies. I foresee Iraqi situation maybe not so different in 50 years time. If there is a possibility no matter how remote for the muslims to grasp democratic principles and thus make the region a better place to reside then we should make the attempt. The ultimate revelations of any war or big action seem to take at least 20-30 yrs to see the fruition (minus WWII). |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-1-29 11:15:56 AM |
| #13 Letters of Marque. I like the texture and taste of that concept. Letters of Marque were usually applied to shipping so for el-quada pirates near SE Asia/India Ocean area that could be effective. How does one apply Letters of Marque for taking out islamo-facists on land? Like the scap bounty in the French & Indian wars or what? Thought needs to be given here. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2004-1-29 11:01:10 AM |
| #12 The american army has learned a great lesson from Israel, 'occupation'. |
| Posted by: RwandanRefugee 2004-1-29 10:27:33 AM |
| #11 zhang - perhaps i shouldnt have used the buzzword "peacekeeping" im really thinking more along the lines of a nationbuilding corps, to go in AFTER the combat troops are done. And of course you would still need regular armed forces in a situation like iraq at present, with an ongoing insurgency. It is quite dramatic how much US troops in Iraq are performing nation building tasks for which they are not trained, how many problems there are with language and cultural knowledge, how there ARE some cases of soldiers doing and saying things that piss off Iraqis who could be on our side (which IS NOT a criticism of our troops, who are doing THEIR best in a difficult situation) and of course the strains on a force that never expected to be deployed so long. Now maybe all this can be solved by bringing the civil affairs guys back into the active force structure, training the light army divisions in Marine Corps small wars doctrine, using the Marines themselves for the worst spots (like Falluja-Ramadi-Khaldiya in Iraq) etc. Maybe. The advantages and disadvantages of seperate nationbuilding corps with a different recruiting and career approach should be considered, however. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-29 10:23:16 AM |
| #10 Super Hose- As good as the PHMs would be, they're long ago gone - I saw them tied up in Charleston a couple of years ago when I went to see CSS Hunley, and they were scrapped not long after that. Too expensive, y' know... Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-1-29 10:21:52 AM |
| #9 A dedicated Peacekeeping corps, with basic infantry training, civil affairs-MP training, plus heavy language and foreign culture training, etc. This is more of the usual liberal BS about the US military being too muscle-bound and trigger-happy. Peacekeeping MP's won't do crap in Iraq - note that the UN has not deployed peacekeeping MP's successfully anywhere that a shooting war was in progress. The Bosnia fiasco, with massacres of hundreds of thousands of Bosnian Muslims, Croats and Serbs, prior to US intervention, was an example of how peacekeeping troops are overhyped (even when European troops are deployed). When a determined and well-funded enemy is shooting at you, choppers, armor and artillery* are what's needed, not MP's with rifles and Humvees. An MP is just a lightly-armed and poorly-trained target for the opposition. * Choppers are needed to airlift quick response teams, armor is needed in case secondary ambushes are in position, and artillery is needed in cases where the enemy is out in the open. Asymmetrical power (mobility, protection, firepower) is required to respond to asymmetrical stealth (terrorists who hide among civilians). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-29 9:36:15 AM |
| #8 Bureaucracies attempt to be efficient; professions attempt to be effective. True wisdom, right down to using the word "attempt". |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-1-29 9:35:58 AM |
| #7 lots of good coments let me throw in my pet solution A dedicated Peacekeeping corps, with basic infantry training, civil affairs-MP training, plus heavy language and foreign culture training, etc. Commited on recruitment to spending most of their time overseas, on model of foreign service. Recruited more from Foreign service wannabes (loads of people apply for FS and dont get in) than typical armed forces recruiting pool. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-29 8:57:29 AM |
| #6 Some notes taken by an officer who had a chance to meet with Schoomaker recently. They give more insight into the Chief of Staff of the Army's thinking. - Most important part of his vision is a joint and expeditionary mindset. "I am first a joint officer and then an army officer". He has voted in the Tank in favor of a joint issue, even at the expense of the Army as a service. So has CNO and CMDT and CSAF. He signed a piece of paper at confirmation that if a conflict between his role as CSA and his role as a member of the Joint Staff, that the Joint Staff is supreme. - Joint Interdependence. "We cannot operate the Army the way we used to. Must move toward Joint Interdependence which means we will give up capability to gain some other capabilities". - "All of OSD and Congress realize the next several decades will be the decades of Land Forces. We just need to organize and to get to the fight." - Effectiveness vs Efficiency. "I don't care how hard people work as long as we win. I don't care what it takes to get the water to the soldier, as long as when he turns on the spicket, water comes out". Bureaucracies attempt to be efficient; professions attempt to be effective. - Training - Education - Experience. "When experience is tied to training and education, it is a huge multiplier". Mentioned the recent combat experience of 3ID and the tremendous multiplier it gives the Division's warfighting capability even through refit and reorganization. Also defines his rational of "building the bench" - need to get future senior leaders the experience they need. - Chaos. Some want to order it. A strategic leader learns how to move it forward. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-1-29 8:36:58 AM |
| #5 Light infantry is the way to go. Activate two more divisions, each with two light brigades, one Styrker brigade and an air brigade. Technology may mean that we can use fewer forces to do more, but the Army is still faced with the fundamental, time-honored problem of space and time; i.e. troops can control only so much space before they beginn to lose their effectiveness. Light rifles are the only way, IMHO, to stretch our defense dollar. All that said, I wouldn't mind seeing two more heavy divisions, but the lights are the cheapest way of stretching our defense dollar. SH, I like the letters of marque and reprisal. After all, which segment of any society has the biggest stake in eliminating terrorism if not the commercial sector? It is an idea whose time has finally come. Sooo, if Congress does issue letters of marque and reprisal, anyone wanna contract a pretty good IT guy? :o) |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-1-29 8:17:02 AM |
| #4 I am convinced that Rumsfeld has been healthy for the DOD and military readiness as a whole with even better things to come. It may seem unusual but I am a Navy guy who doesn't mind seeing the USN give up jobs and turf in favor of the Specops and the Army. In a healthy society - ala not NK - there exists a limited portion of the overall GDP that can be spent in defence. For instance, the P-3 is a platform dedicated to prosecution/elimination of deepwater We need to be be careful about making large capital expenditures for destroyers that are manned by 400 people to fulfill coastal patrol functions that can be more economically performed by frigates, reactivated PHMs, arming Minesweeper craft, increasing the size of the elements armed Coast Guard, or issuing Letters of Marque. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-29 8:03:43 AM |
| #3 Use some of the operaters that have gained field experence as trainers(worked well during WW2). Pull out of the Balkens,it's Euorpe's back yard,let France,Germany,Belguim,etc,clean it up. Take out Kimie and Co.Without the Norks 80% of the reason for having 2ID in Korea no longer applies. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-1-29 7:52:48 AM |
| #2 Increasing the size of the armed forces is not only costly, in our current circumstances it may well be counterproductive. Doing so would take our best experienced trainers and have them doing basic work with raw recruits rather than preparing existing troops for specific combat scenarios. Moreover you run the risk of getting lower quality recruits. The Navy already has a problem finding young men for sonar duty whose hearing hasn't been degraded by rock concerts or loud music over headphones. Our military is very strained right now, but I suspect Rumsfeld & Schoomaker are right that increasing the number of active duty troops isn't the answer. Look for them to move all sorts of support functions here and abroad to hired contractors, where it hasn't already happened. That can have side effects too, but is much more likely to pay off in the short run (next 2-3 years). |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-1-29 5:47:54 AM |
| #1 The 3rd Infantry is expanding from three maneuver brigades to five, and the 101st may be next - http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?&story_id_key=5599 |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-29 1:59:09 AM |