Posted on 04/10/2004 8:47:30 AM PDT by 68skylark
WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- U.S. Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid has requested more forces for Iraq and was discussing plans Friday with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a senior defense official confirmed.
Abizaid told reporters in Iraq he wanted several thousand more troops, and indicated they may come from the 3rd Infantry Division, which only returned from its last Iraq deployment six months ago.
Pentagon officials said it was unlikely the 3rd ID would be called up so quickly.
The senior defense official said Abizaid's request was too specific for a warfighting commander to make. The forces Abizaid gets will be decided on by the Joint Staff in Washington. He is supposed to limit his requests to capabilities and Washington decides, based on scheduling and skills and equipment, how to fill those requirements.
Rumsfeld promised this week if Abizaid wanted more forces he would get them.
Whatever the military requirement, adding troops to the force in Iraq carries with it a poltical price. More than a year ago, then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress the occupation of Iraq would require "several hundred thousand" troops. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz called that estimate "wildly off the mark." The Pentagon leaked the name of Shinseki's replacement months before his scheduled retirement, rendering him a lame duck.
In his farewell speech at his retirement ceremony last year, Shinseki warned the Army was being over-committed.
"Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army," he said. "Our soldiers and families bear the risk and the hardship of carrying a mission load that exceeds what force capabilities we can sustain, so we must alleviate risk and hardship by our willingness to resource the mission requirements."
As Shinseki predicted, the Army is very heavily tapped. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, nine of its 10 divisions are either on deployment or have recently been relieved by other forces and are due for rest and retraining.
The U.S Marine Corps has tapped roughly 70,000 Marines for duty in Iraq next year alone. The senior defense official said Marines are likely to be called on to fill in the ranks because of the strain on the Army.
Abizaid asked his staff for options in Iraq earlier this week as violence in the country increased, sparked by a rebellious Shiite cleric and insurgent attacks on coalition forces. More than 200 U.S. personnel have been injured in combat in the last 24 hours, according to Defense Department statistics
Some fraction of the 1st Armored Division, due to rotate out of Iraq by May, could be forced to stay for another three months, Pentagon officials said. One officer with the division in Baghdad has already had his redeployment orders slowed, he told United Press International.
There are now 135,000 U.S. personnel in Iraq, some of who are overlapping as new forces rotate in to relieve others. The number of troops was supposed to drop to 105,000 by June. However, with increased violence and the potential for more as the June 30 hand over deadline nears, that target may be unrealistic.
Fighting in the last week has claimed at least 40 American soldiers and Marines. U.S. Central Command said Friday two soldiers and three Marines were killed April 8 and April 9. One soldier from the 13th Corps Support Command was killed and 12 injured in an attack on their convoy near Baghdad International Airport Friday. Also Friday, one 1st Cavalry Division soldier was killed and another wounded when they were ambushed as they responded to a mortar attack near their base.
Three Marines were killed April 8 in the restive Al Anbar province, the region that encompasses Falujah and Ramadi, where insurgents have stepped up operations.
There have been at least 458 U.S. forces killed in action Iraq as of Friday. A total of 3,269 have been wounded in combat since the war began more than a year ago.
What's your reasoning behind this statement? Because you were Army? Interservice rivalries are normal, but counterproductive. With all due respect, this sounds like just that. Or maybe jealousy.....(kidding).
the MAGTF has been widely hailed as a much more effective/efficient method of warfighting.
What GWB "wants" is unimportant.
He is in the grip of titanic forces. He has spoken about riding the storm, I have prayed for him that he wasn't just reading a speechwriter's line.
All that is left for President Bush is victory. Anything less, and he's going home in January.
The list of things he wants that he isn't going to get is long.
He isn't going to get partners from the Religion of Peace. He isn't going to get Germany and France to be content. He isn't going to get an Iraqi government, much less a democratically-elected one. He isn't going to get a new tone in Washington. He isn't going to get respect for being compassionate. He isn't going to get freedom for Afghanistan. He isn't going to get cooperation from the Saudis. He isn't going to get a Palestinian state.
As long as he can crush our enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women, it will all turn out right. Lincoln was headed for defeat, then Sherman burned Atlanta.
Landslide.
People will follow the strong horse, Mr. President.
Let's roll.
The solution is definitely not hordes of lightly trained infantrymen, especially if they're draftees. All that would lead to is lots of dead Americans. The money would be better spent on smaller teams of more trained and more capable SOF troops.
Listen buddy, I don't want to embarrass you this morning, so I am going to temper my comments. North Korea could not feed a standing army for two weeks of engaged combat. If we were at war against North Korea, we would turn their lights off by taking out their nukes, and let them starve. Use your head.
China is a defensive oriented military structure. If they come outside their region, we destroy them like pigs in a puddle. We have no strategic need to attack them on their soil. Were China to become offensive, we would vaporize them.
None of that speaks to the subject, which is IRAQ, and what is needed or not needed there. We are not in Iraq to conquer the place, we are there as liberators. That means killing their captors, which we are certainly capable of doing without your 25 divisions.
The days of the large standing Army are long over. The only thing that massive numbers of troops do well today, is slow down CBU fragments. The U.S. is not interested in expanding or holding new territory. We only wish to kill those who #uck with us.
Nice idea.
Therefore, victory depends on the actions of people not under our control and not subject to our will.
Very, very bad idea.
I don't. You and the others like you are the MAIN reason we're the greatest country the world has ever known.
The only ones who doubt you are the liberal media lapdogs who couldn't recognize the business-end of an M-16 . . . yet it is precisely these same weapons and the brave warriors who use them that afford the journalistic whiners the freedoms they so carelessly use to inflame our enemies. We're at war. I call them and the Ted Kennedy-clones traitors.
But folks like you, 68skylark, are our secret weapons. As a Vietnam-era veteran, I salute you, sir.
Well said. I'm glad you jumped in there before I did. I'm not holding my temper well at all these days. I'm really getting sick of the liberal ignorance in some of these posts
When the Army Chief of Staff in front of Congress says that it will take several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq, there is a reason, BECAUSE IT DOES! Rumsfeld ignores correct advice and then insults the Army publicly and often.... like he is some spoiled brat. Now American many more soldiers and marines are dying because Rumsfeld is wrong ..... maybe he'll hide behind his new Chairman .... and talk about the need for special ops .... oh yeah if he was serious about Special Operations he would have kept Shelton.
Since 9-11 there has been at least one very close call with a nuclear war (India & Pakistan), many other situations (your thoughts on Korea are way off the mark) could require US forces .... Syria.... Saudi Arabia ..... Iran ..... Rumsfeld is gambling with American National Security without any giving the US the proper options. I hope that your thoughts on China are correct, but the Chinese are very aggressive and have a much stronger industrial base then US.
While I agree with your statement about wanting to "kill those who #uck with us." it is far off the mark, especially since it was the marines who were publicly saying the army was too hard in the Sunni Triangle and that the "Soft Approach" is what was needed to win. If we don't kill them then we have to convert them .... the only way to convert them is too occupy their lands with a large occupying army.
You need help, son.
Eric Shinseki was a blithering fool, and there is no one at the Pentagon today who would tell you different. I worked there, and I know that to be the case. Why you would choose to quote CLINTON's Army hand-puppet is beyond me.
I wont even bother with the rest of your comments, because you started from a false premise, that Eric Shinseki actually knew what he was talking about. You are off your rocker if you believe that Hugh Shelton knows more about SOF than Peter Shoomaker does. General Schoomaker served as the Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command from July 1994 to August 1996, followed by command of the United States Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina through October 1997. His most recent assignment prior to assuming duties as the Army Chief of Staff was as Commander in Chief, United States Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, from November 1997 to November 2000.
The next time you want to argue with me, bring your facts or expect to get served.
We are at war. That's the reason why. I have yet to meet a family that doesn't understand that.
And who is stepping in what? At least the Army does not openly lie about readiness reports or hands over spyplanes to our enemies .... It is ironic that you as a navy guy belittles Shinseki about berets when you know nothing about the Army . Shinseki saw the army go from a post -Vietnam Army to a great Army. Shinseki was a product of the heavy forces, there are zero marine units that could even stand up to any heavy Army unit of equal size. Yes the ARMY heavy units won both Iraq wars. The Air Force did do a very good job in both wars and the Marines did their supporting attacks well. Shinseki is not a product of Clinton, most of his career was served under Reagan and both Bush(s). When Shinseki stood by his principles, Rumsfeld acted like a child, and publicly insulted him. Shinseki and the Army knows that there is a still a very important future for heavy forces but I guess you can't disagree with Rumsfeld .... too bad Rumsfeld is wrong!
You just keep stepping in it, don't you?
Stepping in the truth?
That more troops are needed .... that they have been asked for ..... that we need a larger Army .... unlike Dick Clark, the Army went to Congress BEFORE the event and said what was needed .... Rumsfeld can't handle the truth. He thought we would be "librators", we might have been in 1991 not 2003. He is trying to fight a war on the cheap & like a poker game .... he has a losing hand and he refuses to fold. Rumsfeld plays rotation games and hopes that another major crisis does not break out. Rumsfeld continues to be wrong. American soldiers on the ground continue to do a great job despite Rumsfeld. I have been a commander in an occupied country. It is basic, we are a Western Army in an Arab country that is not friendly to us. I still hope you have a Happy Easter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clinton eliminated 4 Army divisions during his time in office--units that would be extremely valuable in Iraq right now. Retired General Barry McCaffrey--whom I don't always agree with--postulates that we're about 80,000 troops short in Iraq right now. Total strength of the divisions cut under Clinton--about 80,000.
Thanks to decisions made by his predecessors, President Bush entered the War on Terrorism with an undersized Army. We need to add at least two more divisions to the active Army and, truth be told, we could really use the four that Clinton got rid of. Unfortunately, I don't see any groundswell in Washington to expand the Army; that would mean bigger budget deficits, and less money for some of the big-ticket weapons systems now in the development pipeline.
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.