Thread: 4 more years in Iraq
08-24-2005, 07:28 AM #1
4 more years in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq -- well over 100,000 -- for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.
In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.
Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.
About 138,000 U.S. troops, including about 25,000 Marines, are now in Iraq.
"We are now into '07-'09 in our planning," Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty.
Schoomaker's comments come amid indications from Bush administration officials and commanders in Iraq that the size of the U.S. force may be scaled back next year if certain conditions are achieved.
Among those conditions: an Iraqi constitution must be drafted in coming days; it must be approved in a national referendum; and elections must be held for a new government under that charter.
Schoomaker, who spoke aboard an Army jet on the trip back to Washington from Kansas City, Mo., made no predictions about the pace of political progress in Iraq. But he said he was confident the Army could provide the current number of forces to fight the insurgency for many more years. The 2007-09 rotation he is planning would go beyond President Bush's term in office, which ends in January 2009.
Schoomaker was in Kansas City for a dinner Friday hosted by the Military Order of the World Wars, a veterans' organization.
"We're staying 18 months to two years ahead of ourselves" in planning which active-duty and National Guard and Reserve units will be provided to meet the commanders' needs, Schoomaker said in the interview.
The main active-duty combat units that are scheduled to go to Iraq in the coming year are the 101st Airborne Division, based at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas. Both did one-year tours earlier in the war.
The Army has changed the way it arranges troop rotations.
Instead of sending a full complement of replacement forces each 12-month cycle, it is stretching out the rotation over two years.
The current rotation, for 2005-07, will overlap with the 2006-08 replacements. Beyond that, the Army is piecing together the plan for the 2007-09 switch, Schoomaker said.
With the recent deployments of National Guard brigades from Georgia and Pennsylvania, the National Guard has seven combat brigades in Iraq -- the most of the entire war -- plus thousands of support troops.
Along with the Army Reserve and Marine Reserve, they account for about 40 percent of the total U.S. forces in Iraq. Schoomaker said that will be scaled back next year to about 25 percent as newly expanded active-duty divisions such as the 101st Airborne enter the rotation.
August has been the deadliest month of the war for the National Guard and Reserve, with at least 42 fatalities thus far. Schoomaker disputed the suggestion by some that the Guard and Reserve units are not fully prepared for the hostile environment of Iraq.
"I'm very confident that there is no difference in the preparation" of active-duty soldiers and the reservists, who normally train one weekend a month and two weeks each summer, unless they are mobilized. Once called to active duty, they go through the same training as active-duty units.
In internal surveys, some in the reserve forces have indicated to Army leaders that they think they are spending too much time in pre-deployment training, not too little, Schoomaker said.
"Consistently, what we've been (hearing) is, `We're better than you think we are, and we could do this faster,'" he said. "I can promise you that we're not taking any risk in terms of what we're doing to prepare people."
08-24-2005, 09:03 AM #2
Everyone needs to contact senators, congressmen and the president and let them know the people want the troups to come home as well as change foreign policy.
Really. If everyone did it and they did not try to do what the people ask then we can just elect them out of office(or at least persuade the electoral college after voting in senators and congressmen that listens to the will of the people)
08-24-2005, 09:19 AM #3
Looking in the past, we had forces in Japan 7 years after WWII,
The occupation of Japan by the Allied Powers started in August 1945 and ended in April 1952. General MacArthur was its first Supreme Commander. The whole operation was mainly carried out by the United States.
Iraq Progress Eclipsing Post-World War II Germany
“Within two months, all major Iraqi cities and most towns had municipal councils – something that took eight months in postwar Germany.
Within four months the Iraqi Governing Council had appointed a cabinet – something that took 14 months in Germany.
An independent Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency announced in just two months – accomplishments that took three years in postwar Germany.
Within two months a new Iraqi police force was conducting joint patrols with coalition forces.
Within three months, we had begun training a new Iraqi army – and today some 56,000 are participating in the defense of their country. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army.”
08-24-2005, 11:03 AM #4Retired Vet
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
But Bigen, America wasn't having its ass kicked in Japan and Germany post WWII. I don't believe the troops should be brought home untill Bush fixes Iraq. He broke it, let Bush fix it.
08-24-2005, 11:54 AM #5Originally Posted by Mesomorphyl
08-24-2005, 01:43 PM #6Originally Posted by JohnnyB
08-24-2005, 05:33 PM #7
What scares me is the possiblity of Jeb being the next prez.......time to move
08-24-2005, 05:35 PM #8Originally Posted by Badgerman
08-24-2005, 06:50 PM #9
Comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan is a mistake.
I dont think America can afford to be in Iraq for another 4 years.
08-24-2005, 07:49 PM #10But Bigen, America wasn't having its ass kicked in Japan and Germany post WWII. I don't believe the troops should be brought home untill Bush fixes Iraq. He broke it, let Bush fix it.
I can understand why the Islamic community could believe this because of its views that the West intends to impose their will on their community.
But to infer that the US “broke” Iraq almost borders on pure insanity. If one could say that the former regime was a fair form of government which benefited its people, and we took that government down and replaced with a quasi chaotic government we have today, I would agree. But you and I both know that wasn’t the case.
I realize given the region, it would be impossible to remove the religious piece of this, but if it were possible for argument sake, in order to see the bigger picture, which is simply a strategic location in the middle East. What’s so wrong with “We give, We get”. The US has taken on the task of removing a violent dictator and rebuilding a country. For this we have paid a price in money and in lives. Why is so difficult to accept that in return we expect a friendly regime, stabilization in the region and a steady flow of oil.
If any other country were in the same position as the US, which is the superpower of the world, that country would have acted in a similar manner, but possibly without the restraint this country has shown.
Sometimes when I read these threads I can’t help but to think that people need to get their heads out of the sand and join the real world. This is a very complex issue which is going to require complex solutions.
Four years more is just going to be the tip of the proverbial ice berg.
As far as being able to afford this mission, whether its 200 billion or 800 billion spread over time, we will pay the price. And if that price requires another 10,000 lives, you would be fooling yourself if you thought for one second that these numbers would not be acceptable losses to this country of 320 million lives.
I have traveled the world over many times and always have conversation with peoples from a variety of cultures. Yes, its true that many countries find the US to be a country of arrogant people and they don’t like Americans. But if you go below the surface of most of those arguments, its not to difficult to see that much of the resentment is rooted in simple jealousy for what the Americans have achieved. But I certainly would never expect anyone to admit to this!
08-24-2005, 10:07 PM #11New Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
i was in iraq for nearly a year and a half with the army and things are getting margonally better
08-25-2005, 03:23 AM #12Originally Posted by jjnuggs
08-25-2005, 07:01 AM #13Originally Posted by MilitiaGuy
08-25-2005, 07:04 AM #14
I Know he was there, but everyday 3 to 5 marines get killed and many get injured do you call this a better situation? , maybe he was a kitchen soldier or he is hallucinating from all the fear he faced in Iraq.
08-25-2005, 07:08 AM #15Originally Posted by MilitiaGuy
Any opinion other than your own, is wrong, regardless of their first hand knowledge....
08-25-2005, 09:01 AM #16Originally Posted by Bigen12
08-25-2005, 10:18 AM #17
yes because I am always right, and when you are right any opinion other than yours wrong, plus all the facts back up my opinion everybody know that the American in Iraq are in bad situation.
whats prove to you that jjnuggs was really in the army? lets say he was in the army what prove you that he is telling the truth?
on the othe rside I am talking facts not opinions!!!
08-25-2005, 11:26 AM #18
Is this not accurate?
08-25-2005, 11:33 AM #19Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
08-25-2005, 12:38 PM #20Retired Vet
Originally Posted by jjnuggs
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
A little saying I often use..
"when your enemy comes to your home welcome him in, when he goes, send him on his way".
I doubt daily body counts mean things are getting better.
08-25-2005, 01:01 PM #21
Oh yeah.....pacification really works......we have created a seething world of hatred........and it will last for hundreds of years.......you can still experience the seething hatred the Native Americans have........just go work on the rez for awhile.
The problem is Arabs are more inclined to act on their hatred.......indians just drink away the pain.
08-25-2005, 03:42 PM #22
If the fighters in Iraq were smart........they would back off for awhile......let the US pull out......then take over......BUT.......I think the Chinese might be behind some of this.........keep US engaged in a vietnam situation while they take over the world oil and money supply.........
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)