Posted on 05/07/2003 3:25:24 AM PDT by fightinJAG
Reducing troops in Iraq would be 'a disaster,' McCaffrey says By Eric Rosenberg
Hearst Newspapers
Monday, May 5, 2003
WASHINGTON — A force of about 100,000 American troops will be needed to police Iraq for the next five years in order to bring stability and a democratic-style government to the country, a former U.S. commander in the first Persian Gulf War said Monday.
Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Mechanized Division that helped expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, said a smaller occupation force could undermine the swift U.S.-led victory that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime.
There now are some 135,000 U.S. service members in Iraq, and U.S. officials are discussing reducing that number. In one scenario under discussion, the reduced contingent of U.S. troops would then be part of a larger multi-national force.
Referring to news accounts that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is considering cutting the U.S. force to 30,000 personnel, McCaffrey told reporters that such a reduction "would be a disaster," coming at a time when the Iraqi people are taking the first steps towards rebuilding their country and forging a new political system.
The United States should maintain a "multi-division presence" as the Iraqis train their own force to take over day-to-day police work in cities where the U.S. Army currently performs that function. A typical division is made up of tanks, artillery and Apache helicopters and approximately 20,000 service members, depending on the configuration.
"If we are lucky, and I bet we may be lucky, you'll get the Iraqis to start running most everything, so that we can back out of the cities," he said.
U.S. planners are wary of having American forces patrolling Iraqi cities for a length period because of concern that their presence would create a backlash.
Rumsfeld's aides shot down an assertion earlier this year by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki that a force of "several hundred thousand" American troops would be required. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said Shinseki's estimate was "wildly off the mark."
Pentagon officials are piecing together a post-war occupation plan that involves other countries assigning military units to helping with policing duties. A senior administration official said last week that 10 nations are to provide post-war forces in Iraq, including the United States, Britain and Poland, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Denmark, Bulgaria, Albania and the Netherlands. The Philippines, South Korea, Qatar and Australia have agreed to provide support forces.
Under the post-war plan, Iraq is to be divided into three sectors commanded by the militaries of the United States, Britain and Poland.McCaffrey, one of several retired senior military officers hired by news organizations to provide military analysis during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, drew the ire of Pentagon officials for criticizing the war plan for lacking more Army armored divisions.
The Army had fielded only one heavy unit, the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., before hostilities broke out.
McCaffrey said that at least two more heavy Army divisions should have been used to assure that the conflict was over with quickly, with as few U.S. casualties as possible. He also was against the so-called "rolling start" — the strategy that was used of gradually sending ground troops into Iraq rather than the use of a powerful knock-out blow from the outset.
McCaffrey dismissed the criticism, saying: "It got very personal I thought."
McCaffrey also said: — The swift defeat of Iraqi forces would likely serve as a potent deterrent to terrorists and other governments, such as North Korea, considered hostile by Washington.
— Hussein's defeat would help defeat terrorism and dissuade the governments that sponsor them. "Iraq made us much safer from terrorism. It's another sanctuary, another intelligence service that won't be out there with safe houses, bucks, reconnaissance of (American) targets," he said.
— Pentagon leaders shouldn't extrapolate from the swift victory that the Army requires wholesale changes. Rumsfeld has pushed to "transform" the Army into a more agile, lighter force able to be rapidly deployed around the globe as needed.
"Let's be careful about what we think we've learned," McCaffrey said.
At least he's consistant.
Consistantly wrong!
According to a lot of retired generals/admirals, and a flock of ex-politicians:
The invasion of Afganistan will never succeed, just look at the English and Russians. Even if we get into Afganistan we aren't prepared for the winter.
The administration is in complete chaos, with open civil war between State and Defense.
If we go into Iraq the Arab world will rise up against us.
...and so on...
Some people just don't get it. He's one of them.
McCaffrey might have been wrong on all else that he said pre-war, but he is right on this, post-war.
Rumsfeld is enamored of the air arm of our military and is less enamored of the ground arm. For whatever reason, he wants a smaller and a lighter army. If that is what the currently proposed "lighter" equipment looks like, a light, wheeled BMT kind of thing, then America should be clear that this wheeled thing can be taken out by even the old tanks that we encountered in Iraq.
Rumsfeld is counting on our technological and tactical advantages to keep that new light vehicle from being hit. That's fine against Iraq when you have air supremacy, but what about when you go against other nations who have capable airforces?
What about when the tactical advantage is lessened by nations who bring their speed, maneuver, and surprise capabilities to a higher level?
What about when other nations develop their own precision strike weaponry?
Rummy: 10,000+ wins/victories!
Left wing Haters of Rummy/GW: 0/ZERO Wins!
Any general is foolish to say that EVERY war will see us with air supremacy.
Any general is foolish to say there will be NO innovations in air defense.
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.