Posted on 07/21/2005 8:39:10 PM PDT by jmc1969
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- U.S. and coalition troops have have numbered at least 250,000 in Iraq to provide security in the immediate aftermath of the war, the Rand Corp. said.
Rand, a major think tank, calculates that for security and stability in the "golden period" immediately following the invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein`s regime, the coalition should have deployed 1,000 troops for every 100,000 inhabitants. It bases this on an analysis of previous peacekeeping missions that have been successful - notably, Kosovo and East Timor.
"Establishing security in the short-run is critical to avert chaos and prevent criminal and insurgent organizations from establishing a foothold," it said in a new report, "Establishing Law and Order After Conflict."
The United States did not deploy additional troops in the immediate aftermath of major fighting based on the assumption by the Bush administration that the country would be largely relieved and happy to be free of the repressive Saddam Hussein regime.
The report puts forward "very rough guidelines" for establishing post-conflict security.
"They suggest that U.S.-led efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have not met most of these minimum resource levels," the report states.
Roughly 145,000 U.S. troops crossed into Iraq. Over the last two years that number has increased to 165,000 and then dropped to about 120,000. There are now about 138,000 troops in Iraq -- still more than 100,000 fewer than Rand says is reasonable for assuring security.
The U.S. military is hoping to fill in those gaps with the training of Iraqi security forces.
It continues to deal with the ramifications of the mistakes of the thinly staffed post-war period: by November 2003 the insurgency had become organized and widespread through the center of the country and U.S. forces were -- and are -- spread very thinly to deal with the threat. The insurgency has targeted critical infrastructures, government leaders, and is increasingly attacking civilian targets to destabilize the government and discredit coalition troops.
In the intervening two years, U.S. forces have been conducting intensive counter-insurgency operations and training Iraqi security forces with slow and varying degrees of success. There are about 171,000 Iraqis trained and equipped. About 50,000 are deemed capable of conducting relatively independent operations against insurgents, although most still rely heavily on U.S. back up.
The U.S. military made a different calculation in Afghanistan, where only several thousand U.S. forces were deployed for the war to rid the country of the Taliban and attack al Qaida, and about 20,000 are there consistently for post-war reconstruction and stability operations.
However, much of the Afghan war was fought with existing Northern Alliance and war lord militia soldiers. One senior U.S. military official estimated their numbers at around 70,000.
The author of the Rand study, Seth Jones, told UPI that is still too few forces. By its calculations Afghanistan would also need about 250,000 troops.
" There were far too few forces there in general. The security situation in Afghanistan now is in pretty bad shape. Insurgent attacks have increased significantly -- 200 percent since 2002," Jones said.
There is a fair amount of organized crime as well. Jones, who has spent research time in Afghanistan in recent months, said the roads are so dangerous at night from criminals that coalition forces will only travel at night by helicopter. Non-governmental organizations are regularly targeted.
Moreover, there has been a 100 percent increase in opium cultivation and production from 2002 to 2004.
"The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorarited in the last two years," Jones said.
One factor influencing the small number of U.S. forces was a reluctance to repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Chief among the lessons was to avoid a massive occupation.
"Most people who went for a low footprint tend to make that argument," Jones said. "It`s possible there might have been some groups who would not be particularly happy (about a U.S. occupation) but the key is how you go in and do it.
"If you put an Afghan face on most of that work -- which is what we`ve done, when the U.S. took Kabul and Kandahar the Afghan national army was in the lead -- the high number (of troops) with a significant Afghan role would not have led to a major resistance," Jones said.
"The history of these sorts of cases is clear: there were large numbers (of occupation troops) in Germany and Japan after World War II, and large numbers in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor, and there was no major insurgency," Jones said.
Might also be that Iraq is not the world. Got to be ready for other needs.
Kosovo was successful? What a crock.
I think Rand waited two years too long to figure that out. All these coulda woulda shoulda's remind me of the old saying.... "If the Queen had balls, she'd be King"
So, half a million troops for the two countries. Thanks, Rand. Apparently all you need to work at a "think" tank is the abilitiy to do straight line extrapolations. They probably think gasoline will be $6 next year and the average temperature next summer in the U.S. will be 137 degrees F.
My hindsight is 20/20, too!
Not this §µ!† again.
I agree. Sounds like something 9 out of 10 competent professionals would conclude 2 years later. Good to see this world class think tank come onboard.
I remember seeing a Marine Colonel being interviewed atop his vehicle about the day Baghdad fell smiling and telling a reporter that the looting taking place all around them at the moment was a good thing, a justified response to the tyranny by "the people". I knew in a heart beat that was a mistake. It took several more days for orders to change and our forces to start acting as police.
Oh well, something to get right if we ever do this again...
Well, one could achieve the Rand ratio (1:100) in either of two ways: increase the number of the troops or decrease the population.
If math serves correctly, that's one soldier for every 100 inhabitants? Sounds overboard. We'd be accused of being too repressive, wouldn't we?
You and I and everyone else here know this is a crock. This UPI reporter is making Clinton appear larger than life, as Clinton is still searching out his legacy. If Kosovo is so successful, I cannot figure out why we're still there tonight.
Maybe the Rand Corporation could fight all the wars on paper. Yeah, that's the ticket.
If your right, do we send in more troops now? Or stick it out with what we have and let everything keep going along as it is.
Having and maitaining a larger force would definitely make us look like an army of occupation rather than an army of liberation. This would have created the need for even more troops and an ever increasing escalation. Given the historical low low low level of casualties in this conflict I think our generals should be writing the books rather than Rand Corp.
how many wars has rand fought and won?
Probably no more troops. But we’ve never just, “let everything keep going along as it is”. We and the insurgents are constantly and radically changing tactics and adjusting to each others changes. The side that can adjust the fastest, best and longest wins.
I think the author’s speaking to a window in which the enemy had a cover of chaos to regroup, like a cancer that had been partially cut out and not immediately followed up with chemo.
The cancer has now spread. The Iraqis are stuck with what the disease left them and are going to have to fight it to some kind of acceptable resolution themselves with our help. The insurgency is too deeply integrated in their body now for us operate and to carve it out externally with more troops.
LOL! I'll take the word of the military over bean counters on this question.
Leftist claptrap. The government should pull all it's funding fron the Rand corporation, it's clearly a source for leftwing propaganda. Hey Rand, if you think you have a better idea, run for president. Until then, STFU.
Good point. If anything's a quagmire, it's Kosovo, not Iraq, where things bet better every day. Thanks Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.