Article

2003-07-17 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-07-17 10:20:19 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This can hardly be true. 25th ID, First Infantry, 10th Mountain, First Cavalry, etc. are not in Iraq. However, even they were, it wouldn't be a bad thing. They are in contact with the enemy, learning about him, studying how to fight him. It is hard on the troops, but better for them to be there than in barracks.

Posted by wretchard 2003-7-17 10:39:15 AM|| [belmontclub.blogspot.com] 2003-7-17 10:39:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 one brigade of 1st ID is in Iraq, and 10th mntn is only 2 brigades.

Comabt experience may be a good thing, but do we want all the divs to be getting it at the same time? Leaves little available for contingencies (Isnt 25th ID supposed to be available for Korea, for example?) And theyre supposed to be getting training in maneuver warfare that theyre not getting in Iraq. And of course some troops need to be trained first to go over to Iraq. And being hard on the troops is not trivial, with an AVF, and with morale considerations (we dont want trigger happy guys, too beaten down too care) So there is a real question how long this deployment is sustainable. Pentagon still says 3rd ID all be home by Autumn, but will be replaced by more US troops if necessary (presumably 1st Cav)

My own opinion is thats why the accelerated schedule for the Iraqi governing council. We want more foreign troops - and we know we wont get them without UN approval, and that means a greater UN role in Iraq. So we want to get the Iraqi authorities in place early, so the UN can't screw up the Iraqi political situation.

In the long run, if we want to be less reliant on the UN, we probably need a US peacekeeping corps.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 11:45:02 AM|| 2003-7-17 11:45:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 We could probably stand to raise another division or two more of light/"leg" infantry to spell the mech divisions on occupation duty. It would also help a bit if we could pull the 35th out of Bosnia and let the Euroweenies handle it.

If we do raise some new formations, might I suggest that one of these be designated the "93rd Volunteer Infantry," in honor of the volunteer militia who gave their lives on 9/11. The divisional motto should be easy to figure out.

Posted by Mike 2003-7-17 12:23:51 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:23:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 The key question that I have not seen discussed in this blog is whether we need to expand the army for the time being.

Also, isn't it about time we sweeten the pot for those in at least combat arms and give extensive GI Benefits to them. Paying for school entirely, etc? Don't we owe it to them?

Posted by Penguin 2003-7-17 12:45:44 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:45:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 LH: despite the obvious need for more troops and the need to rotate the 3ID home, I'd really prefer to keep the UN out of Iraq as much as possible. It's the old "camel's nose" problem, and the UN folks are just creaming their pants hoping we'll get to that point.

Mike and Penguin: I'm not mil/ex-mil, but I'd suggest that we need two more divisions of light infantry or light mech infantry. One should be the 93rd (I really like that). Both should be trained as peacekeeping infantry (American style peacekeeping -- "mess with us and we kill you"), expressly to take on jobs like Iraq, Bosnia, etc. They might not be the first in to fight (though they could), but they would have a good punch, could handle the duties of peacekeeping/occupation/rebuilding, and would relieve the pressure on the heavy infantry and mech divisions. These divisions could be airlifted quickly into place and would have sufficient mech power (Bradley's, etc) and helo support to ensure that we'd never face a Mogadishu problem.

Posted by Steve White 2003-7-17 12:52:42 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:52:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Even our light infantry is fairly high tech, and
thus expensive, and is trained for combat. Thats why i think Rummy is reluctant to add a full division - IIUC the plan was to reduce the number of divisions even further prior to 9/11.

What we need is arguably a seperate service - a cross between the peace corps, the marine corps, and the foreign service - that is speficically trained for civil affairs, policing, peacekeeper stuff - and has a level of fluency in foreign languages and cultures more analogous to the foreign service than to the military. That is not resentful of having to deal with the locals, but is recruited for just that purpose. But unlike peace corps types, expects to carry and use weapons. Somebody pointed out that the number of folks who apply to the US foreign service far exceeds the number accepted - well heres a career for all the liberal arts types who are idealistic, good with languages, and looking for overseas adventure.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 12:56:00 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:56:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 What bugs me is that all this was fairly predictable. To be more precise, just why did the administration refuse to believe that a five-figure level of manpower commitment was going to get the job done when it seems as though we're going to have to keep the force levels where they are for the foreseeable future?

Posted by Hiryu 2003-7-17 12:58:37 PM|| 2003-7-17 12:58:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Re: keeping the un camel out - well yeah, i agree thats desirable - the UN is folks are itching to reduce the role of the INC and the Kurds, pump up Pachechi (sp?) and the less pro-US elements among the Shiites, etc, and generally screw around. Which is why it would have been great if we had managed things in such a way that Iraq today was more orderly and we didnt need so many troops (would that have been possible with better planning? - quite honestly I dont know) But "we are where we are" And keeping 148,000 US troops in Iraq for a year or more is going to impose a significant cost on our strategic posture, given the force structure we started out with in March 2003. Either overstretch the regular army - with consequences for readiness and retention - use Marines - with consequences for USMC's combat edge (Marines dont do occupations) - or use National Guard - far more than the 2 brigades theyre now talking about - with consequnces for National Guard availability for Homeland Security, and for retention and recruitment. Those costs have to be weighed against the negatives of the UN camels nose. Im beginning to lean to the idea that if we can get the Iraqi political situation at least pointed in the right direction first, it may be worth letting the camel in. In addition to providing troops, it diffuses some of the political cost of occupation, and may make the occupation more acceptable in some parts of Iraq (particularly in the Sunni triangle). It also can be part of a healing of the US relationship with the great powers other than the UK - which to my way of thinking is a plus, though i suspect to some of the harder line Jacksonians thats a negative.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 1:07:27 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:07:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 and i would suggest that letting the UN camel in is far less damaging to our strategic position than withdrawing and leaving the country either to Baathists, pro-Iranian islamists, or a civil war between them. And while I realize the strategic differences from Viet Nam, i would suggest its quite possible that as time goes on there will be growing sentiment (and not just from the ideological left) to "bring the boys home".

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 1:12:08 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:12:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Lots of discussion on this topic in other blogs. Up to five additional divisions are projected.

The problem with our military is that we're reactive. We liberated Iraq with a military basicly designed to beat the Soviets. Now we're trying to flesh out what type of military can handle peacekeeping and multiple small conflicts.

The base problem goes back to the reductions under Clinton. The American people had no particular objection to them, though some few of us did object. Other bloggers have suggested that President Bush would have a difficult time selling an expansion of the military to the people, since we're handling what comes along. Expansions only win popular approval when a need is seen.

As an EMT and former firefighter, I can assure you that taxpayers worry more about the guys they see standing around the stationhouse, washing the rigs, than they do about whether or not there are enough firemen or EMT's if there is a need. In other words, taxpayers, the vocal ones, don't want to see people standing around, on the clock, just in case. I think the same point of view holds true for the military.

I'm a reactionary. I think we need both armor and light infantry. I think the airborne units need to be stripped of all the non fighters, as they once were. I want battleships as well as carriers. I like the idea of the Stryker brigades, but nothing beats a column of M-1A-2's for punching a hole in an enemy formation.

Posted by Chuck 2003-7-17 1:18:00 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-7-17 1:18:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 help me here chuck - ISTR that the conservative obejctions to Clintons military policy focused on inadequate readiness, and the lack of support for ballistic missile defense, NOT the reduction in the number of active divisions. And again, when Dubya and Rummy came in, they were planning on reducing the army further, to 8 divisions, in order to focus on weapons systems and transformed force.

I think anyone looking for a 15 division army is dreaming. Thats 50% more divisions to be trained, armed, transformed, etc. The whole focus is to have a few divisions with LOTS of bang per division. Which seems to work quite well, as demonstrated during the Major Combat ops phase of the Iraq war. Where it doesnt work is peace-keeping/nation-building. Its simply a waste of resources to build up more army divisions, even light ones like 10th Mountain, for peace-keeping/nation-building. And since it involves long tours overseas, its probably not the right assignment for the NG. We either go back to the 9/10 Bush approach - we dont do nation-building, leave it to the UN - or we try something different like a peacekeeping corps.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 1:37:42 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:37:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I want newer and better technology that will make our troops and tanks invisible. But seriously, more R&D would help a lot too.

Posted by Rafael 2003-7-17 1:37:52 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:37:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 BTW, the peacekeeping corps is not my idea - i got it from oxblog - heres what they say

"So what are the alternatives? Patrick, Rachel and myself have talked about this and are slowly working our way towards the idea of a nation-building force that has the virtues of both the Peace Corps and the Foreign Service. Like the Peace Corps, it should be composed of idealistic young men and women who want to better the lives of impoverished nations. Like the Foreign Service, it should be composed of professionals whose expertise in local languages and cultures enables them to advance American ideals and interests.

Given that the Foreign Service accepts only an infinitesimal percentage of its applicants (and the Peace Corps is extremely selective as well), there is clearly an untapped reserve of American citizens who want to serve their country abroad. One should also note that the Foreign Service is extremely attractive because it offers what is, in essence, lifetime employment and excellent benefits. If we want to establish a professional corps of nation-builders, attached to the Department of State or any other, I think that offering similar terms will be absolutely necessary.

And extremely expensive. Without knowing much about military logistics, I still suspect that having combat divisions serve as nation-builders is far less cost effective than having a purpose-built nation-builiding corps. To be sure, there will still have to be significant combat forces deployed to protect our nation-builders. However, the nation-building corps should be able to perform those tasks which resemble the work of an American police department.

In other words, nation-builders should not be afraid of carrying a gun. If you are a pacificst, go to the Peace Corps. If you a warrior, enlist. But if you are prepared to face the maddening complexity of working on the margins of peace and war, then you are ready to build nations."

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 1:54:54 PM|| 2003-7-17 1:54:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Not a lot of info on attacks against occupation troops in Germany post-WWII, but I have put a little bit here. Scattered attacks through 1947. I titled my blog post Quagmire.

On of the last lines from the exerpt from the 100th Infantry Division's history says it all, though, I think. In reality, the German nation was so thoroughly defeated, and the vast majority of German civilians so destitute, that very little came of this brainchild of Heinrich Himmler. It's been said before, the Iraqis don't believe they were beaten.

Posted by Chuck 2003-7-17 2:40:55 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-7-17 2:40:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I think a separate force of peacekeeping troops that look like soldiers but are trained as peacekeepers would be a disaster. Who would join such a dead end force? Who would lead such a career-ending force? And if they look like real soldiers, at some point down the road they will be put into a sitution requiring real soldiers and get popped big time for their troubles. Our enemies won't respect semi-soldiers but will appreciate the imagery of killing people who look like US soldiers. Makes it more dangerous for all of our troops.

The solution is to greatly expand the MP force. They have both a law enforcement outlook and are extremely well-armed light infantry. Add more Military Police brigades that can do base security (so dismounted ARNG tankers aren't doing the job) and which can handle peacekeeping (so 3rd ID can go home and rest) as well as securing lines of supply (the way 101st AB did during the war).

And for God's sake, keep the heavy armor--it sure isn't obsolete yet.

Posted by BJD (The Dignified Rant) 2003-7-17 2:55:46 PM|| [www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRhome.html] 2003-7-17 2:55:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 And, BTW, Germany was surrounded by nations hostile to the Nazi regime. And there was a four power occupation. And the US had conscription and a massive army (though with considerable pressure for demobilization) So all in all a rather different situation - in Iraq we have an essentially 2 power occupation (so far), the several neighboring powers hostile to the occupation, and an overstretched US, with a population whos commitment to occupation is questionable. Not that im saying we're not gonna win this - just that theres lots of differences from Germany 1945.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 2:57:50 PM|| 2003-7-17 2:57:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 BJD - why would it be a dead end force? and why wouldnt they have the ability to fight, even though not trained for conventional war. I guess the difference is seeing the mission as more than just policing - nation building, with needs for language and cultural knowledge. Yeah, theyd need conventional forces with them - presumably theyd work in tandem with regular army in some situations - but theyd recruit people who dont WANT to be warriors - for whom being an army MP is not a satisfying career. Just as Foreign service and Peace corps are not. They would be both more distinct from US soldiers, and yet better at protecting themselves than current logistics and support units (who the baddies ARE taking potshots at)
I guess it depends on what you see as real problems over there. Does it matter that hardly any units have anyone who can speak the language? Does it matter that when Salaam Pax sought admission to a meeting as a translator for a reporter, the GI said "oh, you speak French?" Does it matter to have large numbers of people who are interested in fully understanding the local culture, and using that knowledge in searches, running checkpoints, etc? Even if theyre not as expert in combat as the army guys. I dont know, but i sure hope that some people examine the afteraction reports from Iraq with an open mind, and consider that as an option.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:17:34 PM|| 2003-7-17 3:17:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 I guess this is the money quote

"But if you are prepared to face the maddening complexity of working on the margins of peace and war, then you are ready to build nations."

If you dont think this work is maddengly complex, but think its just a matter of applying sufficient force to overwhelm the baddies, i dont suppose youd support a peacekeeping corps.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-17 3:20:46 PM|| 2003-7-17 3:20:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I favor the MP approach,they are trained in police techniques,crowd control,and when necassary can kick serious ass.
I don't care what that nitwit said awhile back,when it comes to pay and benifits our proffesional soldiers airmen,& marines(especially e-1 to e-6)get screwed.I'm not talking about R.E.M.F.s,but up-front,ass on the line troops.
If the recruiters start really pushing for those interested in a carrer in law enforcement,and increase the pay and bennies I bet they could get a lot of recruits.

Posted by raptor 2003-7-17 4:17:17 PM|| 2003-7-17 4:17:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 liberalhawk:
Well, I think it would be dead end for officers and senior NCOs who would get stuck with leading pseudo-soldiers. Yeah, I'd boast about that tour of duty were I an aspiring officer. Dead end for the privates--no--they would likely be one-termers. Any that wanted to go on in a career in the military would be handicapped by their peacekeeping training. Nor do I think too many people who don't want to be regular Army would join an outfit that is like the Army but not actually the Army. It takes tremendous discipline to be a soldier--perhaps especially in peacekeeping duties--and I doubt those types would be good peacekeepers.

Any Army unit that undergoes peacekeeping training becomes combat ineffective until they can be retrained. I would not want to institutionalize this.
Do we need peacekeepers--even regular Army--on occasion? Sure. But don't like it too much. A necessary evil. MPs are already police-like and since they would be able to do more than just peacekeeping, would be more useful.

All the cultural and language people can be attached to the MP units. Shoot, our Special Forces types do a lot of this. Nor do I agree that they would be better at defending themselves than the rear echelon types. Besides, I thought your idea was that peacekeeping corps replaces regular Army line units--won't the logisitcs people still be driving the trucks?

The Army is stretched taut and we do need to do something. I'm open to thoughts but nothing I've read in years convinces me that a dedicated peacekeeping force (or constabulary corps or whatever) is the right idea.

Posted by BJD (The Dignified Rant) 2003-7-17 4:24:02 PM|| [www.geocities.com/brianjamesdunn/TDRhome.html] 2003-7-17 4:24:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 The last time I had official relations with Peace Corps was 1989 as a teacher trainer. (I've been back to Morocco many times since and have run across PCV's on occasion) I wasn't particularly impressed then; too much whining about too much work, but that was at the beginning of their 2-year commitment, so maybe most turned out OK. BTW, you can quit PC at any time and get your ticket home the same day. Would that be same for LH's idea?
Re FS, July '02 I had passed written exam and went to a State dept. workshop to get tips on oral exam. Most ?'s at workshop concerned How much vacation do I get, How much $ do I get, How can my wife get a job abroad, What kind of immunity do I get with a diplo passport? etc. Damn little about how to help my country. The oral itself in Oct '02 was my first and I wasn't offered a position. I heard a couple of the other 9 present were. I would have thought 17 years of living in Araby on local economies plus French would have put me in a special category, but only 1 question was asked about Araby re my Saudi experience: "So how was it?" Rest all bureaucratic mumbojumbo like, "If you were the consular officer on duty and you got a call from an American who's just been put in jail, what would you do?" "You are running the embassy commissary, and a former ambassador wants to buy whiskey to sell to his friends outside the embassy walls, and you knew about it, what would you do?" Nothing about how the world has changed since 9/11, WOT, etc. It is still a mystery to me, but life goes on. As it turns out, I've passed most recent written and will have a special strategy to do well on oral; a BS strategy, but you gotta play the game sometimes to get the ring.

ANYWAY, I describe all this because liberalhawk's idea is an intriguing one. BUT, I don't think, in spite of the selectivity of PC and FS, that today's typical pool of PCV's and FS would be able to hack Iraq. You want to be serious about this idea the way Oxblog and LH have outlined it? Recruit and let trainees know they will have weapons and combat training plus intensive lang. and cross cultural training 24/7 for at least 3 months. Experts can work out if more is necessary. No PC bullshit. Tell them what the hell the word "mission" and "chain-of-command" mean. Tell them we're in this to promote the interests of the USA; Syrian, Iranian, Palestinian sympathies are to be put on back burner, never to be turned on. No Corrie Bulldozerfood types. Got it? You participated in peace marches in Feb/March '03? Got any good Shrub jokes? Like Molly Ivins? There's the door. Don't tell me about your first-amendment rights. Go do bee-raising in the Middle Atlas. Yeah, that's what it would take and that's only the beginning because what has become apparent IMHO in the last 6 months is that the Baathists were worse than we had ever imagined a regime could be. Pan-Arab/Stalinist/Ceusescu (?) tyranny/brain-washing culture that was in its own vacuum for decades. And you think today's young generation knows that? shit, give me a break. If our govt. can't put together a group of folks like that, then BJD's idea re MP's is the way to go.
I also read on blogosphere recently about putting together a special "Colonial Office" composed of DOD, USAID, DOState proactive types. I think Weekly Standard. Something like this would be a start. In any case, good debate and let's think out of the box. If we keep our lines of comm. open to regular Iraqis and our military heroes there all the BS about BUSH LIED!!! will be long forgotten soon. Class time! Gotta go.

Posted by Michael 2003-7-17 4:59:00 PM|| 2003-7-17 4:59:00 PM|| Front Page Top

23:05 Jabba the Nutt
22:45 Jabba the Nutt
21:39 Denny
21:00 Rafael
20:45 Steve
20:35 Don
20:07 Douglas De Bono
20:03 Douglas De Bono
19:51 Chuck
19:36 Alaska Paul
19:19 Alaska Paul
16:59 Michael
16:52 raptor
16:37 Ernest Brown
16:27 Alaska Paul
16:25 11A5S
16:24 True German Ally
16:24 BJD (The Dignified Rant)
16:20 Alaska Paul
16:17 raptor
16:04 cli
15:54 liberalhawk
15:49 liberalhawk
15:48 Aris Katsaris