Posted on 09/25/2006 5:23:22 AM PDT by MPforeignER
Army considers more combat units for Iraq By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 25, 2006
The Army is studying whether to add more combat units to the rotation plan for Iraq and is considering accelerating the deployments for some brigades to meet a top commander's decision to keep more than 140,000 troops in the country through at least the spring of 2007, Pentagon officials say. Rather than planning for a big drawdown of 30,000 Army soldiers and Marines this year to a level of 100,000, as field commanders had expected, the two services are now trying to figure out how to keep the equivalent of two extra divisions, or 40,000 troops, in Iraq. Army Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander in the region, said last week he needed to maintain the higher-than-expected level because of increased sectarian violence in greater Baghdad between warring Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I agree with the president. This is a decision for the ground commanders to make.
We don't need civilians to be running a war from comfortable seats in Washington, D.C.
If they want more or they want less, let it be keyed to the on-the-ground situation and not on the political climate in an election cycle.
I do think the plan we have is the correct one. Train Iraqi troops to a high standard, find geographic areas of unrest, enter with US & Iraqi troops, cordon off the area, defeat the terrorists and gain control, depart for the next location while leaving Iraqis in control of the area just cleared. After a while, the entire country will be under control and the US troops can consider permanent departure.
I know that many people are preaching that we are stretched too thin and I am inclined to think so, too. However, I don't have an answer. I am all for increasing strength in the region but one must remember we are working with a 10 active division regular army and making up a lot of the strength in Iraq with reserve and National Guard units. I would love to see our Army expand to 12 or 14 active regular divisions but I don't know how this can be accomplished without a draft or recalling personnel who have completed commitments years ago. Yes, there are Marines in that proposed expansion, too, but the Army has always been traditionally the largest component of our military force.
During the Reagan admin, the US Army had 16 combat divisions filled by volunteers. USMC provided another 3 divisions. If we plan to pre empt the enemy in various places overseas, we better have a large military to do it with.
No draft is needed (or wanted.)
The way to accomplish it is for Congress to fully fund the additional Divisions (equipment and solders.)
Congress, however, would rather whine then do their duty and fix the problem.
From my trusty World Almanac and Book of Facts, the US Army strength was 776,244 in 1985. Now we are around 460,000. Less personnel means less divisions.
That being said, I believe now that 1 soldier in 2006 is probably the equivalent of maybe 1.25 in 1985 and 2.0 in 1965 because of high-tech advancements but sometimes all the technology in the world cannot make up for a shortfall of manpower. When men burn out, they burn out.
Part of the downsizing of the Army after the first Gulf War, many of the log and support units were transfered into the US Army Reserves. Currently we have about 10 combat divisions. Several divisions are short one combat brigade which comes from the National Guard.
That would be the 7th and 24th infantry divisions. So, that's 12 if you count the integrated divisions.
We should put a half-mill over there if we're serious about winning this thing.
If the commanders on the ground say they need more troops, then let's send them over there.
In the interim, loosen the rules of engagement when taking on the bad guys. I've been concerned from day one that politics have played too large a role in the conduct of combat operations.
Is that concern misplaced?
Hear! Hear!
No, you're concerns are completely right. My fiancee is over there and he's told me some of the stupid tip-toeing around the Iraqi sensitivities that gets our men killed and makes everything easier for the bad guys.
Washington D.C. needs to understand that we're fighting a war, not having a tea party. It would make life for our men over there much, much easier.
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.