| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| National Guard Brigades Returning From Iraq May Serve Second Term Under New Plan |
| 2006-11-11 |
| The nation's citizen soldiers, already strained by long tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be tapped again under new plans being developed by the Pentagon. National Guard combat brigades that have already served in Iraq may be called for a second tour, likely breaking the 24-month deployment limit initially set by the Pentagon, the Guard's top general said. While active-duty soldiers and smaller Guard units and members have returned to Iraq for multiple tours, the new plans would, for the first time, send entire Guard combat brigades back to the battlefront. Brigades generally have about 3,500 troops. The move — which could include brigades from Arkansas, Florida, Indiana and North Carolina — would force the Pentagon to make the first large-scale departure from its previous decision not to deploy reserves for more than a cumulative 24 months in Iraq. For some units, a second tour would mean they would likely exceed that two-year maximum. The planning was described by Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, who commands the Guard, in an Associated Press interview this week. In a related move, the Pentagon is preparing to release a list of active units — and perhaps reserves as well — scheduled to go to Iraq that would largely maintain the current level of forces there over the next two years, another senior defense official said Thursday. There are about 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. That official requested anonymity because the plan has not been made public. The Pentagon routinely notifies units to prepare for deployment, knowing it is easier to cancel a move overseas than to suddenly make such a large troop movement. It was not clear whether this week's resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would affect deployment plans. President Bush has selected former CIA chief Robert Gates, who has criticized U.S. policy in Iraq, to replace Rumsfeld, but he has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. "We are doing contingency planning for one or two (units), and we have contingency plans for more than two if necessary," Blum said Wednesday. The North Carolina brigade, he said, is being considered since it was one of the first to go to Iraq after the war began in 2003. Blum also said defense officials have been discussing whether they need to adjust their policy that limits the deployment of reserves in the war to 24 months. "When that policy was originally formulated, I seriously doubt anyone thought we would be where we are today, at the level of commitment that is necessary today," he said. Just last month, defense officials said the Marines are drawing up similar plans that would for the first time send some reserve combat battalions back to Iraq for a second tour. Under the authority by which Bush ordered a call-up of the Guard and Reserve after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, troops could be mobilized an unlimited number of times as long as each mobilization is no longer than 24 consecutive months. Until now, Pentagon officials have interpreted that as 24 cumulative months. While the ultimate goal for the National Guard is to deploy one year overseas and spend six years at home, Blum said current demands could force soldiers to deploy as often as one year every three or four years. Blum said he believes that Guard combat brigades are prepared and willing to make a second trip to Iraq if needed. He said the first units to deploy in the war — such as the 30th Infantry Brigade from North Carolina, the 76th Infantry Brigade from Indiana, the 53rd Infantry Brigade from Florida and the 39th Infantry Brigade from Arkansas — would probably be among those first called for a second tour. "Logic would lead you to go back to the ones that went first, and start going around again," said Blum. "But that's probably not exactly how we'll do it" because the decision will depend partly on what types of units are needed. Blum also said the Pentagon will no longer break up the brigades and send them to war in smaller units. He said Guard brigades are more effective working as teams. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #6 No sympathy here. When Congress decided to implement the Total Force concept in which the Guard, Reserve and Regular forces are combined to create a single fighting force because it was cheaper, this is the inevitable outcome. It is not fair to anyone. The concept is effective if you fight one war against one or more nation states. It falls apart when the demand for combat forces is continuous and unrelenting. It will get worse under the Democrats because they will involve us in an unending stream of police actions in pissant countries that do nothing but cost money and kill soldiers (e.g., Somalia, Darfur, Lebanon) |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-11-11 21:24 |
| #5 Good points-- Plus one other that says the Dhimmis will never restart the Selective Service: The startup political transients will kill any hope of staying in power. Back in the 1930's, the start of the draft caused a great deal of political pain, and that was in a society that basicaly approved of what was happening. Nowadays, well, its different. I'm pretty sure I do NOT want anyone in my platoon that does not want to be there. I have enough headaches with two lazy, shiftless bastards that just joined the guard for the education bennies. (long irrelevant rant deleted) I do not want to imagine what it would be like if they drafted some of the ADD slackers I see in freshman english. Some of those mental defectives I would not want within 50M of a operational weapon, loaded or not! I wonder how Grampaw delt with the cat IVc duds he got saddled with? Polish mine detector, maybe? |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-11-11 21:17 |
| #4 The Donks want to dismantle an effective and efficient military. They know that they, just as their opponents who they painted as ‘corrupt’ as though that was exclusive, are held in low esteem. Think the President has low ratings, check Congress. Now check the esteem of our military. If you screw up hard enough and long enough the people might, just might invite someone else to run things for a while. If you’re a Donk you don’t want that, ever. It would be like Detroit caught without small fuel efficient cars during the oil crisis of the 1970s. Once the American public experienced not only the efficiencies of the Japanese vehicles but the fine construction and long list of ‘standard’ equipment, Detroit lost a third of the market and hasn’t recovered. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2006-11-11 19:40 |
| #3 Oh they'd do it in a minute. Their belief is that with a drafted army, we would never be willing to go to war except to protect the continent (which they'd give away so no need to fight). Plus, the nastier Dhimmis acknowledge that a drafted army is of lower quality than a volunteer army, and they believe this to be a good thing for the US. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-11 18:41 |
| #2 FWIW: back in 2003-4 we were told that we would be up for a rotation every 5 years. Guess what-- it's been 5 years for some guard units since they were last mobilized for Iraq. My unit is up for another tour in 2010. It still is better than what granpaw had to put up with. He got mobilized "for the duration". On a related note--I would pay good money to watch the Dems try to activate the Selective Service now. Watching the pained contortions they would go through to justify it...priceless. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-11-11 16:40 |
| #1 Uhm, would this not be a clear indication that we either need a larger active duty force or that we need to cull our other worldwide committments? I don't know that the latter issue would address the manpower shortfall/constraints we are seeing. |
| Posted by: Remoteman 2006-11-11 16:02 |