Up to 30,000 Troops From a Dozen Nations to Replace Some G.I.'s in Iraq

New York Times ^ | ERIC SCHMITT

[milestogo]

June 19, 2003

Up to 30,000 Troops From a Dozen Nations to Replace Some G.I.'s in Iraq

By ERIC SCHMITT

ASHINGTON, June 18 — Between 20,000 and 30,000 allied troops from more than a dozen nations will begin arriving in Iraq in mid-August to replace some of the American forces leading the military occupation there, Pentagon officials said today.

The international forces — from countries including Italy, Spain, Ukraine and Honduras — would join divisions led by Britain, Poland and perhaps another country, possibly India, and assume responsibilities for parts of central and southern Iraq.

How many American troops will remain in Iraq depends largely on the security situation there and how many other nations ultimately send forces, officials said. There are now about 146,000 American troops in Iraq, just 5,000 fewer than at the peak of the war. About 12,000 troops from Britain and seven other countries are also on the ground.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee today, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon was aggressively recruiting dozens of countries to contribute forces for peacekeeping and reconstruction duties.

"We have about 20,000 additional coalition troops that have been volunteered by countries to go to theater within the next 60 to 90 days," General Pace said. He said discussions were under way with another unidentified country to provide 10,000 troops.

But both officials acknowledged that prodding other nations to sign up has been difficult, even after a United Nations resolution last month cleared the way for other countries to begin contributing.

Just six weeks ago, in fact, administration officials had thought the United States could reduce the number of American forces to about 30,000 troops by this fall. But guerrilla-style attacks from remnants of Saddam Hussein's military, security forces and Baath Party loyalists appear to have dashed those goals.

Throughout today's hearing, Democrats and Republicans chided the defense officials for not doing enough to enlist more allies to help shoulder the burden in Iraq, where the postwar environment is still so dangerous that roughly one American a day has died since President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations were over.

"Occupation takes a lot of folks, probably takes a lot more folks than winning the war," said Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who heads the panel.

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's senior Democrat, added, "Given the challenges we are facing, we need our allies and their troops more than ever."

The Bush administration wants more allied forces for several reasons. The Pentagon wants to put a more international face on an American-dominated occupation. More international troops would cut the expense of an operation that lawmakers said was costing $3 billion a month. Mr. Wolfowitz said the Pentagon would probably have to ask Congress to approve another supplemental spending request to pay for the costs of military operations in Iraq.

But perhaps most important, at least for domestic political reasons, bringing in more allied forces would allow most of the First Marine Division and the Army's Third Infantry Division, some of whose troops have been deployed overseas for more than a year, to return home.

Mr. Wolfowitz said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in Iraq, to recommend a rotation policy for the two units by the end of June.

The Pentagon is looking for other ways to lessen the burden on its troops in Iraq. Mr. Wolfowitz repeatedly asked lawmakers today for authority to spend $200 million to train and equip additional Iraqi police forces who would take over duties now performed by Army troops.

General Pace said Iraq needed about 65,000 police officers, but American officials have been able to recruit and train only 20,000 so far.

Under the Pentagon's current plans, there would be two or three divisions of allied forces, each made up of 10,000 to 14,000 troops. Britain would lead one division, which would also include troops from countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

The allied forces would be a mix of combat troops and reconstruction specialists. The 380 Danish troops, for example, would include a light reconnaissance squadron, a civil affairs unit, mine-clearing experts and special operations forces.

Poland has committed 2,300 troops to its division, which Mr. Wolfowitz said today would also include forces from Ukraine, Spain, Honduras and El Salvador.

Pentagon officials are negotiating with several other countries, including some that did not support the war. Defense officials have set aside their anger at Turkey for refusing to allow American forces to enter northern Iraq through Turkish territory during the war, to discuss Ankara's offers of reconstruction support.

Administration officials met recently with the Turkish foreign ministry's second-ranking official, who offered relief aid and other assistance, as well as 1,200 to 1,800 troops. "Turkey is eager now to assist us in the reconstruction of Iraq," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "That's just one example of a country that has begun to move in our direction."

Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter W. Rodman recently visited New Delhi to discuss troop commitments with Indian officials. A cabinet committee has yet to decide how to proceed, and the Indian government has said it will consult other political parties before deciding.

[trebb]

Yep, a unilateral quagmire...

[sky_dog]

What ? No Frogs or Krauts ? that's a bloody relief !
;o) sky_dog

[eyespysomething]

Obviously, there is a mistake in the headline. It says a dozen countries. They meant we are replacing our troops with more of our own troops, right? Because its unilateral right?