Sen. Joe Biden: Not Enough Troops

The ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden of Delaware, told NBC "Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, Sunday, that "unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.”

But the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, disagreed, saying that in conference with chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, that top military leader opined: "That’s inaccurate, that assumption. We can do it. And we will do it.” According to Warner, Pace noted that even an option to increase the troop levels beyond 150,000 was doable.

Biden qualified, however, "There’s not a single general, including Pace, who believes we can keep 150,000 troops in Iraq without extending tours three and four and five times and without further mobilizing the National Guard. We can keep 150,000 troops there. We could put 200,000 troops there. It would require a fundamental change, fundamental in the rotation schedules.”

But Warner suggested that perhaps a fundamental change in the rotation schedules for already harried combat troops was not inevitable, noting that Pace said that there were contingency plans based on internal "cross-training, taking certain segments of the Army and retraining them in 30 to 60 days to perform the basic fighting we see against the insurgents, take elements of the Guard, which might take a little longer. You know, artillery men can become infantry men, artillery men can become policemen.”

On the subject of progress with training-up the Iraqi forces to take over security duties, Biden argued that in order to draw down the number of U.S. boots on the ground, "you don’t not only train up these [Iraqi] battalions, which are 600 to 800 people, you have to train up a larger facility that deals with command and control.”

Biden also emphasized that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's claim of always giving the commanders what they need and want was false:

"I don’t know what they tell Rumsfeld, but flag officers, guys wearing stars, not one single time, including the last one, Memorial Day, and I’m going again in 12 days, have I not been told by flag officers that they did not have enough forces.

"Give you a specific example. They said last time I was there on Memorial Day, ‘We cannot mount a counterinsurgency. We go out and clear out Anbar province. We blow these guys away. We don’t have enough troops to leave behind. We leave. They come back across the border. Senator, we don’t have enough troops.’”

Biden also qualified his voting for the resolution that cleared the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq: "[R]emember what the resolution said, Tim, it didn’t say ‘go to war.’ It said, ‘Mr. President, if you can show these things, then you can use force.’”

"So you are saying that not enough troops was Rumsfelds plan all along and he did not tell the commanders on the ground. "

No, I'm saying it was Rumsfeld's plan all along to have exactly the right amount of troops. I have no opinion on whether or not commanders on the ground were told. I do have an opinion that these commanders are educated enough to know the difference between a war against 'stateless' terrorists and a war against another country.

If we were at war against Iraq or France for that matter, I'd agree with overwhelming, occupying force. After all France would be interested in what is best for their people and would surrender. Having a similar force in Iraq wouldn't force Zarqari to surrender, regardless of how many towns and provinces you occupy.

Terrorist can pack their bags and move to another country for about seventeen dollars, we can't. Now think about this hypothetical:

All terrorists ceased 100% of their activity in Iraq today and we somehow knew they would never bomb another site in Iraq. We'd be able to come home right? In fact we'd be forced to come home. However, there would still be 'x' amount of terrorist in Iraq plotting against the west.

Second hypothetical: We successfully occupy all of Iraq with 500,000 troops. No more Iraqis or troops are killed and no more suicide bombers or IEDs are built in Iraq. Terrorists sit at home, some go to Somalia, some to Syria the rest to yet another location. I personally don't believe they will go home to pick up a garden hoe and become model citizens. I believe they will engage the United States again only this time on our soil.

I believe our commanders should know this. I believe the ones who don't understand this or refuse to believe this need to be replaced. Not because they are idiots, they just need to be sent stateside to wait for a possible war against a 'nation-state' like North Korea where their way of thinking & waging war makes sense.

Folks, the REAL problem is that you're looking to members of our Senate for LEADERSHIP....

That is IMPOSSIBLE....Look at the fools who have been elected SENATOR...

That is precisely why the selection of PRESIDENT is so damned important!

Every member of the Senate has an ego larger than their ability and a desire to be President which is greater than their interest in the Security of the United States...

If one would simply regard the Congress Critters and Senators, collectively as UNTRUSTABLE and inept feckless imbeciles -- one will not be disappointed.

Semper Fi

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.