Posted on 12/06/2004 8:02:26 PM PST by Happy2BMe
10,000 Troops Get Iraq Extension
Associated Press
December 2, 2004
WASHINGTON - With the insurgency still a threat to Iraq's planned elections, the U.S. force is about to expand to its highest level of the war - even higher than the initial invading force in March 2003.
The force will grow from 138,000 today to about 150,000 by mid-January, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
Extra troops are needed to bolster security before the national elections scheduled for Jan. 30. The increase in troop strength also underscores the fact that, despite enormous effort and cost, American commanders have yet to train and equip enough Iraqis for security duty.
Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations throughout the Middle East, told reporters at the Pentagon last month that the insurgents have managed to intimidate many Iraqis into not cooperating with the Americans.
The expansion of the U.S. force also recalls assertions made by some Bush administration officials when the invasion was launched that although stabilizing the country would not be easy or cheap, it certainly would not require more U.S. troops than it took to topple Baghdad.
s it turns out, the post-invasion period has been far costlier in blood and treasure than almost anyone predicted. When President Bush declared major combat operations were over May 1, 2003, the United States had about 148,000 troops in Iraq - slightly more than when the war began two months earlier and more than were there when Baghdad fell in early April.
The Pentagon said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a plan to send 1,500 soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., to Iraq this month and to extend by 60 days the combat tours of about 10,400 soldiers and Marines in Iraq who were to come home in January.
Most of those whose tours are being extended will serve two months longer than the 12-month tours the Army set as a standard limit to avoid putting too much stress on troops and their families.
The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee even a year ago, when they were focused on capturing deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Pentagon officials said they preferred to expand the force in Iraq mainly by keeping some troops there longer rather than sending thousands of fresh troops from the United States.
"They are the most experienced and best-qualified forces to sustain the momentum of post-Fallujah operations and to provide for additional security for the upcoming elections," a Pentagon statement said.
The military normally is reluctant to extend soldiers' combat tours because of the potential negative effect it could have on their families, and thus on their willingness to remain in uniform. In this case, Gen. George Casey, the most senior U.S. commander in Iraq, decided it was necessary to keep up pressure on the insurgents while providing security for the elections.
One unit, the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, is being extended for the second time. Its soldiers originally were told they would be going home in November at the end of a 10-month assignment, but in October they got the news they would remain until mid-January. Now they are being extended until mid-March.
Rumsfeld's decision also applies to:
-About 4,400 troops of the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, which is operating in north-central Iraq. They will stay until mid-March, instead of departing in early January. Those soldiers' home bases are mostly in Hawaii.
-About 2,300 members of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, based in Okinawa, Japan, Hawaii and California, who will stay until mid-March instead of leaving in January.
-About 160 soldiers of the 66th Transportation Company, based in Germany. They were due to depart Iraq in early January but instead will stay until early March.
The Army generally relies upon the 82nd Airborne to keep one of its three brigades on short-notice alert year-round to deploy abroad if there is a crisis. Shortly before the October elections in Afghanistan, about 600 members of the 82nd Airborne were sent there to strengthen security.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a critic of the administration's handling of the war, said the Pentagon's announcement confirmed that the effort to stabilize Iraq would take years, with no certainty of success.
"This announcement makes it clear that commanders in Iraq need more troops and that this will be a long and very expensive process for the United States," Reed said. "It is still not clear whether Iraq will emerge from this chronic violence as a viable and stable country."
We have plenty of troops. Bush and Rummy said so. Who you going to believe, 10,000 troops that want to come home or Bush and Rummy? Thought so, what do the troops know about army troop strength?
President Megawati is constantly decarling States of Emergency and imposing Martial Law just to stay alive. The fact is Islam and Democracy dont go together. Democracy isnt for everyone and thats isnt an insult it is fact.
Where in that statement do I COMPARE WWII to IRAQ?? Please, the statement is very concise and says exactly what it means. There is NO all encompassing comparison intimated as you are suggesting!
"Where in that statement do I COMPARE WWII to IRAQ?? "
If you did not mean to compare Iraq to WWII why would you bring WWII up? Do you always interject pointless observations into threads?
You said "And in WWII the troops were extended for the DURATION!!!"
I took that to mean you advocated the extension of the troops in Iraq tours for the duration as well. If not I apologize.
"The "war on terrorism" isn't really a war. It is like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". Wars are fought with armies."
Let me see here. The title of this thread is "10,000 Troops Get Iraq Extension Into Next Year". This whole subject is about armies. Also, how are the Iraqis to fight a war with police? Do you really think that the military forces of Iraq are trained? They are only partially trained and that is with the help of a lot of other nations. This is not something that can be done overnight. Also, Iraqis were involved heavily in Fallujah as well as other places, but you don't think this is a war with armies, you think it is a social problem. Let me tell you what the social problem is here. The problem is that if we do not do Iraq completely either the terrorists will come fight against citizens over here, or they will take over Iraq and have a national budget to fight with. I do not like what is going on, but the alternatives are much worse.
"There isnt a War on Terrorism. That is the equivalent of saying in WW2 we are in a War against Blitzkrieg!
The enemy is Radical Islam!"
News flash, Radical Islam is who we have been attacking. By the way, we fought against Blitzkrieg during WW2, or did you think that we just ignored it.
Thanks for your service, Semper.
There is a huge difference in what happened in the Clinton administration and now with respect to military deployments, in my opinion.
We are at war. Most of us do not realize it, but we are. Because of the sacrifices of our troops, we get to go shopping, go to parties, live our lives as we always have. They have sheltered us from it, but we need to realize we will be engaged in this for a long time. Many more lives will be lost, both military and civilian before this is over.
It should be Terrorism=Tar baby. And like everyone who has ever been involved in crisis knows, you don't always get to pick your tar baby.
"They knew what they were in for when they joined up, but to compare Iraq to WWII is ridiculous."
How about Iraq to Vietnam?? There was a draft then yet still there was a stop-loss in place. I had a critical MOS and was "extended" while in-country. Back to back tours.
"We should just put in place a Dictator like the Shah of Iran who is on our side to destroy the Radical Muslim uprising!"
We tried that with the Shah. He introduced Planned Parenthood and contraception. The Muslims got rid of him, and us at the same time. Should we try for a repeat?
"We are at war. Most of us do not realize it, but we are. Because of the sacrifices of our troops, we get to go shopping, go to parties, live our lives as we always have."
You mean like, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, the Iraqis would now be attacking our shopping malls, breaking up our parties, perhaps hijacking our planes, etc.?
The Shah was doing fine until President Jimmy Carter and his human rights buddies got involved and decided to Trust Ayatollah Kohmeni.
In WW2 we fought against Germany and Japan, and we fought them until those nations were defeated. Blitzkrieg is a form of attack and you cant fight a form of attack.
You cannot fight Terrorism because everyone at one point of another has used terrorism as a way of War. We are fighting Radical Islam and they just happen to use Terrorism because that is the only successful weapon they have. Once Iran has a nuclear bomb they will use that too. We need to crush Radical Islam Now!
You seem not to understand the concept of "Tar-baby". It is based upon the story from the Uncle Remus Tales where Brer Fox sets a trap to capture Brer Rabbit. The fox's Tar-baby does not react to Brer Rabbit as expected and when Brer Rabbit finally gets frustrated enough to initiate physical force, he gets caught in the sticky substance of the Tar-Baby and is then at the mercy of the fox.
You always have a choice about engaging with a tar-baby. The trick is realizing what it is and not engaging. It is looking as though we might have chosen a better way to deal with this particular challenge. No matter how worthy the goal, if you don't have sufficient resources, resolve and support you should find another way to reach that goal.
"He stated that there is a $27K, tax free reenlistment bonus for the infantry and NO ONE IS TAKING IT!"
BS.
My son's squad leader and 4 other unit NCOs re-upped in Afghanistan last month for varying tax-free sums. Iraq deployment in 9/05 will be their 3rd deployment since Sept. 11th.
Your other points duly noted.
I understand the concept, I just did not realize you were invoking it as literally as you did. There were only three components for me to draw my conclusions from "Iraq = Tar-baby", so I plead guilty.
I was using the more common reference, which is something that you become entangled, soiled or stuck to regardless of the circumstances, like reaching down and picking up a tar-ball off the beach, or getting gum stuck in your hair. So when I said you don't always get to pick your tar-baby, that is what I meant.
I guess we have a semantical difference, in the literal version, choice is key as you stated, in the common usage, you may have a choice(picking up a tar-ball on a beach) or may not have a choice (chewing gum thrown from a car lands in your hair...:)
I agree conditionally with your last statement, which was well worded, "No matter how worthy the goal, if you don't have sufficient resources, resolve and support you should find another way to reach that goal."
I agree that resolve and support are keys to success, and it remains to be seen if our country will muster those qualities. But I disagree that resources are a key. I believe that one often must make a choice regardless of available resources. You can always change your goal, but if you are in a situation where you can't do that, you do what you can with what you have got. Being a Marine (thank you for your service) you understand that better than nearly anyone else on this board, I would guess.
If available resources are ignored, you will very often make a poor choice. How does it make sense to embark upon a course which is doomed from the start due to insufficient resources? (The current subject may not have been in that category - but it was close and it is a lot closer now.)
You can always change your goal,
And/or, you can always change your method of achieving that goal.
but if you are in a situation where you can't do that, you do what you can with what you have got.
Very true. However, getting to that point without sufficient resources is not what a powerful, competent and responsible world power does.
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.