Signs Show U.S. Underestimated Iraq War

Associated Press ^ | September 26, 2003 | Robert Burns

[AntiGuv]

WASHINGTON - Wear and tear on tanks in Iraq is outpacing the Army's efforts to repair and resupply. The administration is scrambling to find thousands more troops by early next year. Stressed American soldiers are suddenly being given two-week vacations.

Five months into the American occupation of Iraq, there are growing signs that the Bush administration vastly underestimated what it would take to stabilize the country after Baghdad fell in early April.

Pentagon planners had not expected that such a large U.S. force, now totaling 130,000 troops, would be required for such a long period — more than a year it now appears, rather than weeks.

They won't acknowledge the miscalculation publicly, but recent developments make them obvious:

* Wear on tank treads and vehicle tires that has far outpaced the Army's ability to resupply them. Treads that normally are replaced once a year are wearing out in two months. Asked whether war planners had anticipated such heavy work for U.S. ground troops this long after the war, Gen. Paul Kern, the Army's materiel chief, said, "Some did, some didn't."

* The decision to require 12-month tours for all troops in Iraq, including reservists. When the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force conquered Baghdad in early April, those troops thought the war was over and they would be headed home in a matter of weeks. Instead they stayed for months, and their replacements will serve even longer.

* The disclosure this week by senior military commanders that they may have to take the politically sensitive step of calling up thousands more reservists for Iraq duty than was planned just weeks ago. A troop rotation plan announced in July included mobilization of two National Guard brigades. But that plan is being re-evaluated in light of continuing attacks on American forces and slow progress in getting other countries to contribute troops.

* The Pentagon's decision to begin granting troops a vacation break, leaves that began this week and are expected to increase in number.

"They planned to pull the troops out quickly," said Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. That plan was based on what Cordesman called an illogical assumption that U.S. forces would be greeted almost universally as liberators, that political control could be handed over to Iraqis quickly and that there would be no insurgency.

"We never really had a nation-building plan," Cordesman said.

Pentagon planners did foresee some postwar difficulties. They were prepared, for example, to deal with a refugee problem, with acute hunger, with a torching of oil fields or with an explosion of ethnic violence — none of which happened.

What they did not fully foresee was the violence aimed at U.S. occupation troops and the other security problems that have hampered the reconstruction efforts and angered many Iraqis.

An early indication that the administration did not foresee a long and violent postwar period was a statement made by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Feb. 27, shortly before the war began.

"It's not logical to me," he told reporters, to think it would take as many troops to keep the peace as it would to win the war. The implication was that once Baghdad fell, U.S. forces could begin to draw down as Iraqis took over more of the security duties around the country.

It remains the plan to transfer security and other responsibilities to the Iraqis. But the looting and lawlessness that descended upon parts of Iraq immediately after Saddam Hussein fell — followed by increasingly sophisticated and deadly ambushes of U.S. troops — have prevented any substantial decrease in the number of American troops on the ground.

Some say it may have been beyond the Pentagon's capacity to anticipate these problems.

"Military operations, in my experience, rarely turn out exactly as you envisioned them, without having to make adjustments," said Steve Abbot, a retired four-star Navy admiral who was deputy commander of U.S. European Command when it ran the air war over Kosovo in 1999. "Clearly there have been major adjustments."

[Blueflag]

This AP reporter can kiss my a$$

"what they did not foresee ..."

"Suddenly" being given leave

Spares are slow getting there (really, THAT never happened before in the military not fighting a day-to-day conflict)

etc. etc.

Another sky is falling report.

I'd give u 100:1 this guy is NOT a veteran

[Blueflag]

taking a clue from Lazmataz, I did my post WITHOUT reading the entire article.

[Pukin Dog]

So, the new tactic is to find a liberal, from a liberal think tank, to give his liberal opinion to a liberal news organization, and call it NEWS?

I see this as nothing but desperation.

[Iris7]

Right on, Blueflag. (As the hippies used to say!!)

[rhombus]

Some say...

this article should be an example of how NOT to write in a real journalism class.

[Cacophonous]

Yeah, I don't think it is a negative to point out lessons learned. I would HOPE that war planners WOULD learn from past mistakes, miscalculations, etc.

[Professional]

...now totaling 130,000 troops, would be required for such a long period — more than a year it now appears, rather than weeks.

Don't quite remember anyone saying the troops would only be there for "weeks". Give me a fricking break!

[kaktuskid]

Every war has mistakes, overestimations, and underestimations...there is no such thing as total perfection in any war.

[Cacophonous]

That's my point. I don't think it is unpatriotic to point out that lessons need to be learned.

Now what the motivations of the author are, I cannot fathom. But there is nothing wrong with act of pointing out mistakes and areas requiring improvement.

[mtbopfuyn]

But you see there is a big difference between journalism and reporting.

[eeman]

Given your experience in the Navy, do you think think Bush/Rumsfeld are trying to run the military "on the cheap?" Particularly with respect to Iraq?

An ex-reservist I know complained about the increasing demands on the reservist and got out and I suspect he would agree with the sentiments of the article, even if the article's intent is a cheap shot at Bush

[AngryJawa]

Tank treads wear out faster during wartime conditions? Spares are harder to find in a war zone? Prewar estimates aren't dead-nuts accurate?

Shocking news. Thanks Mr. AP man...

[Bud Bundy]

I'd say they're doing pretty good in comparison to the Iraqi military.

[MainFrame65]

How many times have we heard about how well "Clinton's military" has performed under Bush, no matter how inept the leadership? This story is pretty clear evidence of just the opposite. It illustrates how much the military had been hollowed out during the Clinton years, and how well the men and equipment have performed even when stretched to the limits.

Clinton piddled away the Reagan-Bush peace dividend, and the bill has now come due.

[Pukin Dog]

I'll tell you what I know.

The sad fact is that our military is trying to recover from the first actual spending cuts(real cuts, not increase cuts) in it's history. This is what Bill Clinton did to our Military. In addition to spending cuts, Clinton changed the priority for how the remaining dollars get spent. In my 22 years, only under Clinton were flight hours cut back for pilots in both training and proficiency flying.

The military that Rumsfeld recieved was close to a shambles. This is the real secret. Bush could not let this be known, for national security reasons. Right now, this very day, the US armed services are in their worst shape ever, and the men and women in the services right now are busting their asses, doing the jobs of 2 or 3 men to keep up readiness.

Donald Rumsfeld is a national hero. He has taken a core group of believers across the services and jury-rigged a military that is both powerful and stable, although it holds on by a thread. The military has been betrayed by ticket-punching Generals and Admirals more concerned about their future private sector jobs then about the future of the men who would follow them. The military wasted huge sums of money on projects and programs that could never ever work, except to line the pockets of a contractor, who would remember the General later on with either a job or a consulting contract.

There are very serious problems with maintanence costs these days because weapon systems that should have been replaced decades ago are still relied upon. The very last Tomcat that I flew was built while I was in high school. I am 44 years old, and that bird is still out there pulling Gs on that airframe. For every hour a Tomcat flies, almost 20 man-hours of maintanance are required. That is a disgusting figure. It is much less with Hornets, but the Hornet is also much less airplane if you ask me.

To answer you, No. Rumsfeld is not running the military on the cheap, he is putting his way too small budget to best use. Were we not at war, there would be different priorities. Iraq is getting almost all availible dollars right now. There just are not a lot of dollars to go around. Bush and Rumsfeld have to tread a fine line. The more they spend, the deeper the deficit. If Bush loses the next election(he wont), Democrats will slash the budget even more. What Democrats hope to do, is reduce the Military to such levels that it cannot perform without the support of the UN. THey would take that extra money to pay for additional socialism on our shores, making people more dependent, and keeping them in office.

Were it not for Rumsfeld, we would be in much much worse shape. He has passed over much of the current military leadership, and is working only with those men who get it. The Army brass hates him for this, and the Air Force is not far behind in that regard. Rummy is putting the emphasis on fast, mobile independant attack units, which goes against everything we learned in War College. The fact is, this is all we can afford. Our military is being forced to fight wars almost like guerillas with good weapons.

Clinton caused thousands of capable officers and NCOs to leave in droves. Today's military is just not as competant and capable as it once was. To bring us back to those levels would cost too much while a war is underway. We have to fight a cheap war until we have cleaned house of the Clinton Generals, and the Defense contractors they love.

I hope thats a good answer to your question.

[Pukin Dog]

When you get a chance, pick up the book on John Boyd, if you really want to know how bad things were.

[dennisw]

great post

[swarthyguy]

The original plan to turn over Iraq to Chalabi and the INC via Jay Garner was nixed by State.

Rummy wanted to handoff to the Iraqis and let them organize and handle the situation via a provisional govt.

Why the provisional govt wasn't set up is the fighting between State and the Pentagon.

Blaming the Pentagon after State took over......

[eeman]

Thanks for your answer, thanks for your service to our country.

A bit off topic, but I enjoyed reading some of your previous posts, last Spring, about Major Schmidt and the death of the Canadian soldiers from "friendly fire". Your posts provided a perspective that only someone such as yourself could provide

[Pukin Dog]

Thank you.

[AngryJawa]

Thanks P.D...especially for your service.

I really appreciate your perspective on this. It helps cut through all the crap we hear everywhere else.

Praying for Rummy's continued good health...

[Steve_Seattle]

"But there is nothing wrong with act of pointing out mistakes and areas requiring improvement."

No, but I would like an honest admission (by critics) that any undertaking the size of the Iraq war would inevitably include mistakes and unforeseen developments, and that the existence of such isn't necessarily a sign of bad planning. I have been involved with several major computer projects, and there are ALWAYS unforseen developments and problems, and there are ALWAYS prophets of doom who insist the project will fail. But none have failed yet. It's the arrogance of the critics that bugs me, not the criticism itself.

[arete]

Yep, we were on a mission to save the world from communism and protect the American way of life in Viet Nam and bring enlightenment to those backward people. Bombed them right back into the stone age and back again. We couldn't lose -- until we did. It only cost 55,000 Americans to prove how superior we are.

Richard W.

[Cacophonous]

That's a fair statement.

It is also true that there were many that predicted many of the problems we see now in Iraq, and that warned that it wouldn't be the cakewalk many of the rah-rah warriors in the media touted. These folks were shunned aside, many were called traitors.

An acknowledgement that perhaps they weren't crackpots or traitors is called for. Honesty is a two-way street.

Most important, an acknowledgement that war planners learned from these lessons, and will plan accordingly in the future.

[Pukin Dog]

Hey, you guys should not be thanking me. Serving our country is an honor. I had a dream job, and I loved every minute of it. I thank you folks who paid for it.

[Pukin Dog]

Excuse me, but we did NOT lose in Vietnam. Our leaders quit, and before that, they were too cowardly to let us win. We were able to draw the North to the negotiating table whenever we wished by bombing the crap out of them. We quit the war because our leaders allowed the public to withdraw their support. We also quit because we mistakenly believed that conscripted soldiers would have the same discipline as volunteers. Some actually did, but not enough. What should have happened, was a sustained bombardment of Hanoi until we achieved surrender, not just agreement to negotiate. Neither the Chinese or Soviets wanted to take us on directly over that country. If they would not fight for Cuba, they were not going to fight for Vietnam.

[mystery-ak]

Bravo.....I couldn't agree more....one more example, for 6 years my hubby's unit canablized their own choppers for spare parts....he was going to retire in 2000 if Gore was elected...thank God he wasn't.

[lawdude]

Isn't it "misunderestimated"?

[arete]

Excuse me, but we did NOT lose in Vietnam. Our leaders quit, and before that, they were too cowardly to let us win.

Okay, we got our butts kicked real good by people without shoes and wearing PJ's. Then we quit.

Richard W.

[OXENinFLA]

What did we underestimate?


How fast and hard we were going to kick Saddams'a$$

[dalebert]

They might have underestimated it but I didn't. Some things take a little time, money and hard work. I think we are doing great.

[Pukin Dog]

If you want to consider more than 1.1 million NVA deaths compared to 58 thousand american deaths a 'buttkicking' for our side, then you need a history lesson. This is not something deserving argument; you should have more respect for the brave men who died then to suggest that we LOST that war. We did not. And if you knew anything about the Vietnam war, you would know better than to suggest they were nothing but people without shoes wearing PJ's. The North Vietnamese were motivated, skilled combatants, with the advantage of not having to listen to public opinion shaped by their own Walter Cronkite. If you dont intend to discuss the matter factually, might I suggest you show more respect for those who died for their country and STFU?

[arete]

This is not something deserving argument; you should have more respect for the brave men who died then to suggest that we LOST that war.

Has nothing to do with respect for the mostly conscripts sent to Nam. Get over it. Regardless if we lost, quit and just ran (which we did), our so called leaders chose to sacrifice American lives and resources in a place that no one gave a darn about. What a waste.

Richard W.

[geedee]

I did a little Google search under "News" for our esteemed Mr. Burns and . . . out of the first 50 articles written by him that showed up, based strictly on the titles as I have no desire to read his crap, 2 of them could be described as "neutral" and they dealt with Liberia and the other 48 could be described as NEGATIVE.

Perhaps in the AP's world nothing positive has happened in Afghanistan or Iraq but I suspect the American people disagree.

IMHO this is a GREAT post because it helps us keep track of the enemy . . . and they ain't all in Iraq.

Hitler had Goebbels.

The liberals have the media, especially Reuters and the AP.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"We never really had a nation-building plan," Cordesman said.

The article is based on a quote from --"Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington."

Yeah, HE'S privvy to the inside track.

Nothing but anti-American, anti-Bush spin.

[sarasmom]

Carter was worse than Clinton.
Thankfully there were only four nightmare years of Carter.
But nightmarish and with long lasting damage they were.
I think an ammendment must be made to the Constitution to prevent degredation of the armed forces of the USA, under any, shudder, future Democrat POTUS.
I am not sure how it should be worded exactly, but something to the effect that any POTUS must have a separate vote of approval, by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the House of Representatives, prior to attaining status of military CINC.
Or we could just ban socialists and criminals from the position of POTUS.
Either way would work.

[Pukin Dog]

No, YOU get over it. I have more respect for our men than to let your bullshit go unchallenged.

[Cacophonous]

So what was the nation-building plan?

[winker]

You have to go in with the solid understanding that there is no substitute for Victory! When you put all the logistical & technical expertise to form a team you cannot cut and run when you get a bloody nose! Its a concerted effort all the way. War is a nasty tough and thankless business and it always will be! Its not for the weenies or the squemish!

[Pukin Dog]

Oxygen is too good for Jimmy Carter. He is a enemy to this country. The only way to prevent the destruction of our military is to make sure that men like Carter and Clinton never get elected again. Clark is one of their ilk, but he is self-destructing without any help. Conservatives need to just get tough again, and stop listening to the other side. If I have one fault with Bush, it would be sticking 'compassionate' in front of Conservative.

[wku man]

It's shocking to many Americans, who don't know jack sh** about the military, and could care less about it 'til the enemy's at the gate. This is the price we pay for having a smaller and smaller proportion of our population that has military experience. This is the price we pay for the national mindset that's been cultivated since 1974, that military service is for the other guy. The birds are coming home to roost.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Cicero]

It wouldn't take a genius to understand that tanks get a lot of wear from sand. I'm sure even the densest people in the Pentagon (leftover clintonoids who are being kept out of the chain of command) understand that. We already fought over some of this ground with armor in the first Gulf War. Not to speak of the campaign against Rommell.

This pretend news article is nothing but sick propaganda, part of the major media campaign to try to wear down Bush's poll numbers. AP, Reuters, and the other usual suspects should be ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately they lack consciences or a professional sense of responsibility.

[Rome2000]

Nice opinion piece, astounding that it purports to be a news article.

[Rome2000]

* The decision to require 12-month tours for all troops in Iraq, including reservists. When the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force conquered Baghdad in early April, those troops thought the war was over and they would be headed home in a matter of weeks. Instead they stayed for months, and their replacements will serve even longer.

Sick leftist bad propaganda, Tokyo Rose of our time.

Must be countered and neutralized.

The fate of our nation depends on it.

[cadillac cowboy]

At the risk of sounding insensitive.....Money doesn't appear to be a problem here.

Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C.
November 21, 2002

"Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services."

Unlimited  dollars created from nothing, backed by nothing......what a concept !!
There is no excuse for not spending whatever it takes at any moment in history.... multiple double negatives noted.

[lorrainer]

Hey, you guys should not be thanking me. Serving our country is an honor. I had a dream job, and I loved every minute of it. I thank you folks who paid for it.

Well, I was going to thank you for your service, but...

Instead, let me thank you for Post #16. ;o)