Who's committing forces

USA Today ^ | August 8, 2003 | USA Today

[68skylark]

Some of the contributions above a great. Others are pitifully small.

On the other hand, it's nice to see some countries making small contributions when we notice other countries (like our 'friends' to the north) who seem willing to contribute nothing.

[nathanbedford]

What will these paltry contributions cost us? For example, if I were Prime Minister of Japan or Korea I would make certain that at least a large token force be sent. Then I have an IOU to cash in when the going gets tough with North Korea.

Are we making asymetrical diplomatic and military committments for ephemeral policical talking points at home?

[Digger]

On the other hand, it's nice to see some countries making small contributions when we notice other countries (like our 'friends' to the north) who seem willing to contribute nothing.

What about our so-called friends to the SOUTH???

[68skylark]

I understand we're making some payments to some countries supplying troops -- either cash, or "in kind" support like airlift, food, uniformes, etc. Some people object to this kind of support for our allies but I don't see it that way -- the help we give them is FAR less than it would cost us to deploy our own troops, so we're saving a lot of money this way.

And yeah, I think all these countries expect to receive some kind of informal IOU from the United States for their help in Iraq. That's okay with me too -- I appreciate it when these allies help us with some of the risks and costs of stabilizing Iraq. And look at it this way, we'd help them out even if they didn't help us -- we're just a good country that will help our friends even when our friends don't help us. So we're not really losing much by having international help in Iraq.

I noticed something else about this list. If we only get half the international troops that we want, it puts lots more pressure on the Pentagon to call up National Guard troops. Everyone who might be affected by this (including me) should keep a close eye on this topic. Seems to me that another 3-8 National Guard combat brigades or more might be called up if we don't get more international support -- that's a lot of Guardsmen.

[irish guard]

small on some countries part but in the aggregate, it is approx 17,000 excluding Turkey, who has alterior motives and that means that some of our boys can stand down.

[68skylark]

Well, the glass is half full or half empty. I'm glad we've got 16,000 to 17,000 promised, but the Pentagon is planning on getting twice that many. If we don't get the international help, the troops will have to come from here. (I'm not saying it's a bad thing to use U. S. troops -- it's better than using French and German troops and putting the whole operation under the UN. I don't think Iraq could ever recover from a catastrophe like that.)

[nathanbedford]

that's a lot of Guardsmen.

And a lot of political liability. Every reservist has a mother, or a wife, or a girl friend who just will not forgive the president who sends their loved one away and into harm's way. Peter, Dan and Tom will jerk more tears than As The World Turns. Imagine the news segment featuring a reservest who is a mother of a sick child?

[68skylark]

Every reservist has a mother, or a wife, or a girl friend who just will not forgive the president who sends their loved one away and into harm's way. Peter, Dan and Tom will jerk more tears than As The World Turns.

Well you may be right, but I'm not sure. So far the Pentagon has not been bashful about calling reservists to duty, even for long duty overseas. (They ARE limiting their overseas tours to 6 months -- maybe for the reasons you cite.)

[68skylark]

And don't forget that active duty soldiers also have wives, mothers, girlfriends, etc., who are able to complain and cry and call their Congressman every bit as effectively for active duty troops as for reservists. So I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that this factor will prevent more call-ups of reservists if we don't get the foreign help we're seeking for duty in Iraq.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with you although I believe the mindset of the regular troops is different from the reservests, or more importantly, the reservists wives, many of whom do not see themselves married to the Army.

However the occupation is manned, fundamental questions of the size of the force must be resolved. Right now we would be hard pressed to engage on the Korean penninsula and still garrison Irak and Afganistan. I note that Rumsfeld has said that other areas should be swept clean but I do not think we can find enough troops in isolated pockets aroud the world to fill the need posed by Korea. On the other hand, if the occupations of these two countries are short, or if the Iraqis themselves can assume most of the burden, perhaps we would have enough, with the reservists, for the Korean threat. If that is the case, it would be a waste of resources to expand regular manpower when other needs, such as quick response logistics, are also pressing.

That is what we are paying Rumsfeld for. Can you imagine leaving this decision up to Cohen? Nobody, not even Churchill, is clairvoyant but I trust Rummy as much as anybody we got.

[68skylark]

I trust Rummy as much as anybody we got.

Yeah. I don't know if I'd enjoy working for him, but I DO trust him as much as anyone who could possibly be in his position.

I think you're exactly right to focus on Korea as the main area of concern -- the second the maniacs running N. Korean think we're weak, we'll have problems. On the other hand, I think the other 3-4 services can probably handle the Korean situation while the Army and Army NG are stretched a little thin right now.

There are millions of people in N. Korea slowly starving to death -- that doesn't seem to bother the libs (and it doesn't bother a few on the right side of the spectrum either). But I think it does bother some of us -- enough that maybe a second Bush term might see some resolution of the N. Korea situation. I'm a reservists and I'd volunteer for that mission.

[nathanbedford]

Well, as I predicted, its started:

His wife, Josephine, who is living with her mother in Englewood Cliffs, had hoped so, too. She recalled the "horror" she felt when her husband approached, carrying a FedEx envelope, with the letter from the Army inside. She was on a treadmill, in a gym at the family's Falls Church, Va., apartment complex, while their 11-year-old son and 9-year-old daughter were playing with friends.

"There was no explanation. He just knew he had to report," his wife said. "I said, 'What do you mean you got called back up?' There were no warnings that he may be one of the people tasked to go."

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960866/posts