| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US may call up more reservists for Iraq |
| 2003-09-25 |
| General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the Pentagon would need to alert reserve troops in the next four to six weeks unless a multinational division of 10,000 to 15,000 troops was pledged before then. But US hopes for winning international support appeared to be waning in the wake of the tepid response to President George W. Bush’s call at the United Nations on Tuesday for more international assistance. Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, told a congressional committee on Wednesday: "We’re not going to get a lot of international troops with or without a UN resolution." The call-up of additional reserve and guard troops to maintain the 130,000-strong US force in Iraq could further weaken domestic popular support for the US role in Iraq. Most reserve and guard troops are married men with families and regular jobs and the long deployments in Iraq are already straining morale. Going to be tough on the Reserves without question. Senator Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, warned: "It’s not going to fly having the majority of the Reserves and the Guard on duty in Iraq. I don’t know how you can do it." That attitude sounds rather French to me. The US currently has 170,000 reservists called up, down from a maximum of 223,000 at the height of the Iraq war. But the number is still far greater than the 50,000 who were called up to secure US airports and borders after the September 11 attacks. The US is still hoping that allies such as Pakistan, Turkey and South Korea will form a third multinational division of 15,000 troops to serve alongside the UK and Polish divisions. That would reduce the US need to call up more active or reserve forces to maintain the current military strength in Iraq. "We have every hope that that will happen," said General Pace. "But hope is not a plan." Mr Rumsfeld and senior military officials said they are now looking to the rapid training of an Iraqi army and police force as the quickest way to reduce the need for US forces. General John Abizaid, who commands the US forces in Iraq, said the most important element now "is the ability of Iraqis to take care of the security situation." He said the best possible scenario would be that Iraqi capabilities improve enough to allow some reduction in US forces next year. "It’s not impossible to believe that could happen next year, provided there’s not a spike in violence that is unanticipated." Germans could help by doing what they just offered to do: start training Iraqi police. Perhaps the next step is to do some of that in, say, Kuwait? That wouldn’t violate German sensitivities. Mr Rumsfeld, who was testifying in defence of the administration’s $87bn budget request to Congress, said the US had no choice but to bear the costs of victory in Iraq. "We believe it is necessary for the security of our country and the stability of the world," he said. "The price of sending terrorists the message that we’re not willing to spend what it takes, that we value comfort or money more than freedom, would be far greater." Yup. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #12 Paul: Agreed - didn't feel too sorry for the NG/ER call-ups either, until of late. Issue that seems to be unfolding in ever-increasing numbers the old "179 days" game being played. As I'm sure you know, NG/ER can serve up to 179 days on active duty w/o earning same benefits as regular active duty troops (i.e., medical, VA benefits, education, etc.). I know of at least 4 units who've served 3 179-day tours back-to-back: 179 days in Iraq, 2 wks on leave, another 179 days, another leave, etc. No problem with the 1st 179-day tour. Do have a problem with the "game" in not letting them at least qualify for active duty benefits. |
| Posted by: LVK (C-1-18 1ID RVN) 2003-9-25 9:40:23 PM |
| #11 Speaking of retirees, how far down the list are they getting? Should the Hose be doing some sit-ups. I'm 38. Don't know whether my body can take the massive influx of java that goes hand in hand with a cruise. Maybe the Captain would let me nap a little on the bridgewing if I got tuckered out. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-25 7:14:25 PM |
| #10 I've been talking to friends who are retired military. They have suggested that it would take, from the word 'go,' between one and a half and two and a half years or so to raise new divisions, depending on what type they were, and how many of them you wanted to raise. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2003-9-25 6:00:16 PM |
| #9 Ahhhhh...are those little reservist getting tired of the "easy money" they've "earned" all those years prior? I don't feel sorry for any of them. The active duty do it every day and don't get to leave until the contract is up. The same should be true for the Reservist and National Guard. Sad face for them. I knew it was a bad idea to rely on them as replacements for the active duty units that were deactivated. Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Reservists or Nasty Girls from my active time in the first Gulf War. I also realize that these men and women are performing the jobs side by side the active duty men and women. However, don't cry me a river and talk about "sacrifice" like you deserve special treatment. When the uniform is on you're a soldier, period. What? You don't think the actives aren't sacrificing just because they do the same job in war and peace? Please. Their service is honorable, the attempt at special privileges is repulsive. Why not start them on a rotational basis with other Guard and Reserve units. Mike had a point we need to expand the services. The Army would do well to create 4 more light infantry divisions. They're cheaper and provide the type of highly trained dismounted troops needed for the missions we tend to face. |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-9-25 4:04:10 PM |
| #8 It's the reenlistment/retention rates in the Guard and Reserves I'm worried about. The pressure from their families and jobs back home is going to make a lot of the most experienced personnel have to think twice about re-uping. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-9-25 3:23:36 PM |
| #7 No idea on the NG/R rates, but at least you won't be getting the weekend warriors anymore - who have no idea they might have to actually deploy. It should be well known by now. I was referring to actives. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-25 2:52:54 PM |
| #6 Frank - was that for Guard/reserves? my impression was that recruiting/retention for the active forces was fine, but for NG/R was suffering. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-25 2:37:49 PM |
| #5 Actually Mike , there was news out this week that all branches had no problems meeting their recruitment numbers. Your point that they may need to up their target numbers may be valid exactly for the reasons you noted, agreed |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-9-25 1:52:44 PM |
| #4 ...Well, don't forget that it was John Kennedy - of all people - who told Reservists complaining about being called up for the Berlin crisis that 'life wasn't fair'. Now, having said that, Senator Hollings actually does have a point in there - the Guard/Reserve structure is starting to show the effects of strains it was never intended to endure. Unless the Authorities start talking - quickly, directly and plainly - about increasing the size of the active duty force, we are going to have a problem on our hands. Recruiting - tho meeting the numbers - is getting tougher again. A draft, though legal and prepared for, will NEVER be politically acceptable unless we get hit with something that makes 911 look like a barroom brawl, and even then you will still have the usual crew of Useful Idiots(tm)providing resistance. The disturbing stories that are coming out of Iraq regarding DOD pennypinching (there's one on Drudgereport today that will drop you through the floor)are doing more to damage morale and retention than any news stories. We gotta rebuild. We gotta pay the troops what they're worth and take care of them. No other options. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2003-9-25 1:45:10 PM |
| #3 Y'mean those monthly checks come with a commitment? Who knew?... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-25 11:23:04 AM |
| #2 Rex - and when Bush came into office his first goal was to increase the number of army divisions? Er, no. The GOP did push for more defense spending, but that was essentially all for ballistic missile defense. The GOP may well have been right about that, and the Dems wrong, but it sure wouldnt have helped on the ground in Iraq. Indeed Rummy still hasnt said that we have too few active divisions. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-25 9:43:27 AM |
| #1 Mssr. Hollings wouldn't know a barium enema from a high colonic. He and his Kammarade know only one mantra - "I don like cowboy" He himself admits "I don't know how you can do it". Yep, that's why you and the rest of your donkey mofo's aren't in charge. I do have feelings for the reservists.....but then if HillBillary hadn't disemboweled our military, those reservists would still be at their civilian jobs. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-9-25 2:57:18 AM |