Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
US Military Sees Need For Bigger Iraq Force
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM (1,174 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Officers See Need For Bigger Iraq Force
U.S. Assessments Cite Tenacious Resistance

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 22, 2004; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 -- Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country.

Convinced that the recent battle for Fallujah has significantly weakened insurgent ranks, commanders here have devised plans to press the offensive into neighborhoods where rebels have either taken refuge after fleeing Fallujah or were already deeply entrenched.

But the forces available for these intensified operations have become limited by the demands of securing Fallujah and overseeing the massive reconstruction effort there -- demands that senior U.S. military officers say are likely to tie up a substantial number of Marines and Army troops for weeks.

"What's important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we've taken Fallujah from them," a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. "We're in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don't get their feet set."

The possibility that additional troops would be required to battle the insurgency in this critical period preceding the Iraqi elections, scheduled for Jan. 30, has been signaled for weeks. The Pentagon took an initial step in this direction last month, ordering about 6,500 soldiers in Iraq to extend their tours by up to two months.

With some fresh U.S. forces already arriving in Iraq as part of a long-scheduled rotation, and two newly trained Iraqi brigades due to start operating next month, U.S. military leaders had hoped to avoid further increases.

But over the past week, a closer assessment of the forces needed for the Fallujah recovery effort and future offensive operations revealed a gap in desired troop strength, at least over the next two or three months, according to several officers familiar with the issue.

The officers said the exact number of extra troops needed is still being reviewed but estimated it at the equivalent of several battalions, or about 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The number of U.S. troops in Iraq fell to nearly 100,000 last spring before rising to 138,000, where it has stayed since the summer.

To boost the current level, military commanders have considered extending the stay of more troops due to rotate out shortly, or accelerating the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to start in January. But a third option -- drawing all or part of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on emergency standby in the United States -- has emerged as increasingly likely.

Hinting at this possibility at a Pentagon news conference on Friday, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, recalled that airborne forces were deployed to Afghanistan on a short-term basis to bolster military operations. Smith noted, however, that the Afghan case was "a little bit different" because "we had a very small number of forces to begin with" there.

If airborne units were rushed to Iraq, commanders here said, they likely would not be used in the offensive actions being planned, given their lack of heavy armor and their unfamiliarity with the targeted neighborhoods. Rather, their purpose would be to take over policing and other functions in Baghdad's International Zone, where American and top Iraqi government officials work. That would free locally seasoned units of the 1st Cavalry Division for such actions.

Much of the division's 2nd Brigade, which had been patrolling Baghdad, was shifted to Fallujah for the battle there earlier this month and remains unavailable for action elsewhere. This situation is the cause of much of the pressure for reinforcements.

"We feel that we need to keep the 2nd Brigade out there longer than we had originally thought, so we're not going to have all the flexibility we wanted in December," one senior military officer here said.

Some senior officers have worried that any move to bring in more U.S. troops could be perceived as a sign of U.S. vulnerability in the face of the tenacious insurgency or as a vote of no confidence in the ability of Iraq's new security forces to fill the gap. It also could fuel the U.S. political debate over whether the Bush administration has committed enough forces to secure Iraq.

But several officers who discussed the matter said any such appeal should simply be seen as reflecting the desire of the military command here to press the fight.

To further bolster U.S. forces in the short term, commanders also are considering extending the scheduled departure of the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, which has been assigned to the Kirkuk area.

U.S. military intelligence assessments portray the Fallujah offensive as having destroyed the insurgency's largest haven, but the assessments also acknowledge that the violent resistance campaign is far from broken nationwide. Since the Fallujah operation, insurgent attacks have continued across a broad stretch of Iraq, from northern cities to a restive area in Babil province south of Baghdad.

Although U.S. military officials have reported 1,600 or more enemy fighters killed in Fallujah, no key leaders of the insurgency were either killed or captured, according to senior officers here. Many insurgents who fled the city either before or during the battle are now thought by U.S. commanders to be looking for opportunities to regroup and mount new attacks.

"Our assessment is that the insurgency remains viable," a senior military intelligence officer here said. "One of the things we see the insurgents doing is moving to areas where we don't have a lot of presence."

The number of daily attacks, which surged to about 130 at the start of the Fallujah operation, has declined to between 70 and 80 in recent days, roughly the level before the operation. But the senior intelligence officer said it is still too early to gauge the full impact of the Fallujah battle on the insurgency, estimating another week or two will be necessary for military analysts to get a clearer picture.

Everything found so far, the officer said, has confirmed Fallujah as the insurgency's largest and most significant stronghold. The sheer number of bombs, shells and other munitions discovered has stunned some senior analysts.

"The number of caches they're finding, the weapons and things like that, are greater than we probably assessed," the intelligence officer said. "So we may have done more damage to their capability than we previously understood."

In discussing battle plans, commanders here did not want to telegraph the areas U.S. forces might be focusing on for their next offensives. But some of the potential targets can easily be discerned by mapping the locations of attacks on U.S. forces, including areas in or around the restive cities of Mosul, Ramadi, Baqubah, Samarra and Baghdad.

At the same time, officers cautioned against expecting anything on the scale of Fallujah, which involved more than 10,000 U.S. troops and about 2,500 Iraqi forces.

"They're not going to be big operations like Fallujah, because there's no place else in Iraq where the situation is like what it was there," one commander said.
^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Sounds like they have things well in hand.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
So what?

Quote:
 
3,000 to 5,000 soldiers


There are 138,000 now.

The Washington ComPost had an unnecessary hissy fit in their article, but I'm not surprised.

Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

The article says that they need more forces. What do you mean "so what"?
^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:33 AM
The article says that they need more forces. What do you mean "so what"?

I believe that he is saying the number of additional forces being asked for is small compared to the number that is already their. That added to statements like:

Quote:
 
"What's important is to keep the pressure on these guys now that we've taken Fallujah from them," a high-ranking U.S. military commander said, speaking on condition he not be named because of the sensitivity of the deliberations on adding more troops. "We're in the pursuit phase. We have to stay after these guys so they don't get their feet set."


make’s it sound as if they have things well in hand. This is military action not a birthday party, things change over time, plans need to be adjusted. Its inevitable.

They needing a few more troops to Keep the pressure on and to stay after these guys in the most efficient way possible. Is a lot different then needing a lot more troops because they still haven’t been able to take Fallujah.

I am with Bill – so what.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Who are you arguing with? Who is the "so what" addressed to?
^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 11:00 AM
Who are you arguing with? Who is the "so what" addressed to?

Not arguing with any one, I am answering the quotation you put to Bill.


I am agreeing with Bill that “so what” if they have asked for additional troops, under the circumstance, the amount they are asking for and why they are asking for them.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Okay. I didn't read the article as critical of the US military or Administration policy so I'm a little curious as to the "so what" response. Perhaps I misinterpreted it.
^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 11:09 AM
Okay. I didn't read the article as critical of the US military or Administration policy so I'm a little curious as to the "so what" response. Perhaps I misinterpreted it.

Nethere did I - hence my first post.

but I did misunderstandd this:

Quote:
 
The article says that they need more forces. What do you mean "so what"?


I thought you where saying that, needing more forces, was more important then a "so what" response and not a question to clarify what the so what meant.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Okay. So we see eye to eye (at least on this specific topic).
^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
I think those extra troops are going to come from the Reserves. My cousin (who is an ex-Marine and now an Army Reservist (for a little over 20 years now), was ordered to Ft. Bragg on Halloween where he is now receiving additional training. He will soon be deployed to Iraq. However, he received his call-up orders a couple of months ago. So I think the DOD has known all along that more troops would be needed in Iraq. The request (or soon to be request) for more troops is just now being made after the elections though. :whistle:



So what happens when the Reserves run out? :chin:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
24thcenstfan
Nov 22 2004, 11:25 AM
So what happens when the Reserves run out? :chin:

Than a draft will be needed, which is another thing they new they needed all along and waited until after the elections to ask for.
Offline | Profile ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Dandandat
Nov 22 2004, 11:29 AM
24thcenstfan
Nov 22 2004, 11:25 AM
So what happens when the Reserves run out? :chin:

Than a draft will be needed, which is another thing they new they needed all along and waited until after the elections to ask for.

You can be sarcastic all you want. But if you think these kinds of decisions aren’t occasionally made/revealed at opportune times (e.g. around elections) then you are being a little naïve.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I wonder if any thought has been given to developing robot troops.
^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Nov 22 2004, 10:09 AM
Okay. I didn't read the article as critical of the US military or Administration policy

I did.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus