Send In The Troops
Pete Hegseth is back from serving in Iraq with a message: more boots on the ground, and pronto:
I’ve heard President Bush repeatedly state he will send more troops to Iraq if the commanders on the ground ask for them. I think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren’t asking because it goes against the “can do” ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn’t want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there’s a disconnect.
I volunteered to serve in Iraq because I believe in our mission there. I share the president’s conviction about the Iraq war–we can and must win, for the Iraqi people, for the future of our country and for peace-loving people everywhere. But I’m frustrated. America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back. Soldiers have all the equipment we need–armored humvees, body armor for every body part, superior technology, etc.–but we simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now.
The single best thing we can do that’s in our own control, it seems to me, is increase troop levels for the sake of security. On that same matter, ‘cautious optimism’ seems to be the appropriate reaction to the Iraqi government’s new unity plan:
Iraq’s parliament on Tuesday welcomed an agreement designed to staunch sectarian bloodshed in Baghdad, but there was no sign of further talks to add substance to the prime minister’s sketchy four-point plan.
“I salute you brothers,” Adnan al-Dulaimi, a leader from the minority Sunni Arab community, said of what some have dubbed the “Ramadan Agreement” to form neighbourhood committees in the capital to curb violence during the Muslim holy month.
“We want to turn this pact from words into reality.”
But talk of a follow-up meeting after Monday night’s talks with Shi’ite Muslim Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki evaporated during the day, and several negotiators said no further detail would be put on the plan before Wednesday at the earliest.
Any hope of success rests on securing the goodwill of leaders who actually control party and sectarian militias blamed for hundreds of death squad killings a week in the capital. But many gunmen behind mass kidnappings, assassinations and torture appear to be beyond the control of mainstream leaders.
We can, and should, bring in more troops, but ultimately, the Iraqis have got to win this war for themselves…
Where are you going to get the troops?
Hey, I know you can’t just pluck them from the trees, but that’s what we pay our congressmen and public officials for; figure it out…
Peters question is mine. Where are we going to get the troops from? All of my friends who have served in Iraq have already done multiple tours or are scheduled for a return trip shortly.
This also fails to address the serious problem of the continuing use of reservists and guardsmen in the same roles as active duty personnel. When these folks signed up for Guard duty, they never expected to be stationed on active in a foreign country for multiple 12-month (now 14-month) tours. That puts a tremendous strain on the family and hence the very “family values” that Republicans profess to cherish. It is hard to raise kids right when Daddy or Mommy spends two out of three years in Iraq eating Halliburton rations.
The only real solution, if you believe more troops is a “solution”, is to institute a draft. Is that something you would support?
Wait a second, Mark. You are suggesting we leave our war plans to the “congressmen and public officials” who have so brilliantly prosecuted the War in Iraq to this point? I suppose you also think that the Katrina clean-up should be handled by Michael Brown and that Denny Hastert should make sure that there are no more pedophiles in Congress.
Incompetence should not be rewarded with increased responsibility.
Docciavelli, I’m suggesting that our leaders lead and figure out how to get the troops there…it CAN be done.
Your smear on Hastert is most unbecoming…I was prepared to treat you seriously until you engaged in that bit of completely uncalled for character assassination…
I love your characterization of my Hastert quip as a “smear”. Are you not proposing “smearing” Democrats with “intentionally placing our nations youth at risk by delaying the exposure of a predator for political gain” in your following post?
I think the pot needs to stop lobbing names at the kettle. If my question unnerved you to the point that you think it was “unbecoming”, then what do you have to say for your suggestion that Republicans smear Democrats for the exposure of a Republican pedophile? “Unbecoming” doesnt even come close. By your analogy, no one should take your comments seriously.
Yes, congrats, Docciavelli, you have discovered “irony” and the point of my post….
75k in germany.
35k in NK.
I am completely against sending more troops.
I’m not a big believer in the accuracy of the poll I’m about to cite, but proponents of Iraq as a failure have been citing it frequently.
http://www.pipa.org/
for the first time, in any poll I have seen, a slim majority of Iraqis(53%) believe that the Iraqi forces can handle the current security, up from 39% in Jan 06.
77% believe that the US has no intentions of withdrawing. Which may explain why the approval of attacks on US forces is over 60%. Sending more troops to control Iraq is a pr nightmare.
More troops means less responsiblity for the new Iraqi troops, and the priority is getting the Iraqi’s in place. US doing the fighting perpetuates the idea that the Iraqis will always be incapable.
This latest attempt at siezing the control of Baghdad away from the factions, is being made by Iraqis as well as US forces. This is their FIRST attempt at doing so, with the coordination of an interior minister who has been on the job since june 8. If the attempt fails, I would reevaluate my opinion on sending more troops, but I would not send troops at this time. It would only undercut Iraqi authority, when we are trying to bring them up to speed. It would also play into the hands of those who are stirring sentiment against US forces.
Baghdad will be won or lost, in this current attempt, based on how well the Iraqi soldiers and leaders perform. If they are successful it cements their rep. If we help too much, they gain nothing and earn no respect from the people.
You mean 35K troops in South Korea?
Now that North Korea announced this morning that they will do another nuke test, do you think it is a good idea to remove the tripwire?
no one wants our efforts to be more successful than I do, but sending more troops will no longer help…maybe in 04-05 when we were clearing cities west of Baghdad, but not ‘holding’.
We sqaundered over 400 soldiers, retaking ground we had previously won-particularily worth noting the brook park, Il marines-whose casualties were astoundingly bad, cyclically with the retaking of the cities-including haditha.
The responsiblity of ‘holding’ is now squarely on Iraqi shoulders.
Those guys sitting in SK are sitting ducks.
They are also a saftey blanket for the parties who are figuring out waht to do with NK. They all believe that there is no sense in addressing kim, if the US has a force to do it.
Removing troops would chnage the attitudes of many of the affected countries. SK particularily.
“Where are you going to get the troops?”
As MTL mentioned earlier, we can reallocate quite a few from their current locations, and easily make up any perceived shortfalls at this time:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/troopMarch2005.xls
“Those guys sitting in SK are sitting ducks.”
Exactly, and if we finally called the South Korean’s continual bluff of “Yankee Go Home!” you’d see a mad scramble on their part to secure the border. Way past time for them to supply their own troops for their defense – 50+ plus years and counting at this point.
The overall plan is, so long as rummy is over it, is to ween Iraq off of the US like you would a pt on a respirator.
The diffrent aspects which contribute to developiong a society are like the five sacs of the lungs. Military, government, civil life(and others) are like the sacs which will have to work together to succeed in learning to breathe, but inefficency in one will be offset by progress in another. While civilian life is failing the militry and govt must compensate. Becuase of the added stress, they grow stronger faster and will lend their support to help a failing society.
The very crisis which we look at to show things are bad, will make the iraqi people and govt that much stronger. Civil wars looms, so long as the govt refuses to crackdown. They just cracked down on Baghdad to signifcant effect. It clearly shows that the IRaqi govt still has control over their military and the cities, and I sincerely doubt they will tolerate much civil unrest. Even if the violence returns as soon as they leave, they go back again, once again demonstrating that there is a limit to the unrest that canbe controlled thru govt agency.
Dmac, you forget China and that old ‘toothless’ Bear up yonder in your scenario. We widely understand that there is a special relationship between China & NK.
If we redeploy our Far East Asia forces over the horizon to SWA, just what do you think will really happen in SK? How about Taiwan? Japan and any other number of minor countries in the region?
Others have talked about the political downside. Let’s look at some of the logistical downside
So we redeploy them, IOWs, inject them into the combatzone. Now we have to deal with the long, long tail of logistics. To support 35K warfighters, we’d need at least a 1 to 1 ratio in support personnel, as well as a good measure of contracted support, ie contractors. Won’t the anti-Halliburton crowd love that. Do we even have a spare fleet of vehicles? How about room & board. Man, that footprint got even bigger.
In truth, redeploying those 35K would only net us at best 5 to 7K warfighters ready to hit the ground running. The rest will either need an intensive crash courses or simply unsuited for the rigors (REMFs). I don’ have any numbers, but I think it would be safe to say that 75% of the soldiers have never been outside the wire, let alone combat essential. Doesn’t mean they’re not needed, ie medical, financial, legal services etc, but there is a lot of bureaucratic dead weight
With reference to the latent opinion that more troops are needed, think of this paper & pen illustration.
Back in the day, none of us really understood why appropriating Government-Owned Paper (GOP
)and pens were such a big deal (Fraud Waste & Abuse). Heck, that ubiquitous black pen was only a dime apiece in bulk. So what if a few of them somehow made the trip from office/shop to your apartment. You see, at the unit level, we only saw that our shop went thru a dozen pens every week or so.
We never stopped to look at it from the bean-counter’s perspective. If the DOD had 5 million employees that ‘prematurely’ went thru a new pen every week, then the DOD was spending $500K a week on pens. Now add in paper, paperclips etc. And people wonder where all that money is going (no snark required over $600 hammers).
When discussing the issue of fraud, waste and abuse: you have the following types: Scrupulously Clean Hands — never takes a GOP home (pun intended), economic facts notwithstanding, it’s all black & white.
Casual Sticky Fingers — if I need one, take/keep it. Most of us fits this. However, some simply don’t care about the ‘nickel & dime’ effect, others who become aware, become more conscientious about aquiring GOP,
and of course,
The Hardcore Thief who takes as much as he can and pawns them off. It’s all about me, me & me.
Ermmm, I just forgot where the above ties into the subject at hand…
I read the article and found it quite sincere, however, I take exception to the bit about the national guard/reserves (Every war that we’ve had involved uprooting the citizen from home & hearth to fight until put down or told to stand down). Then I looked at the closer, “First Lt. Hegseth served as an infantry platoon leader and civil-military operations officer in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division” I’m not denying 1LT’s viewpoint, but he’s just a young whippersnapper. He lacks the long view that comes with maturation. But if indeed a serious student, I have no doubt that his viewpoint will continue to evolve over the years.
I recall plenty of occassion where I, in my Wet-Behind-The-Ears stage, was full of righteous rage & frustration at the status quo during the height of the cold war. Gosh, if only we had blogs back then, I too would have bared my ‘grasshopper-ism’ for the world to see. Luckily, as a conservative, I was more right than wrong.
Gotta run
“If we redeploy our Far East Asia forces over the horizon to SWA, just what do you think will really happen in SK?”
I don’t pretend to know what kind of personnel is tied up in the aforementioned regions that I outlined earlier – but if you get a chance to look at the Heritage figures, we’d still have a huge manpower presence in Asia proper. As for SK, Japan has made a huge investment in both manpower and hardware during the current Prime Minister’s tenure, in anticipation of potential problems with NK or China. When NK started shooting “test” missiles over their country’s borders, they got the new religion quite quickly. As for Taiwan, the response from the US would most likely be a massive strike force from the 2 – 3 carrier battle groups currently in the Pacific.
Dmac, sorry if I sounded like I was disagreeing with you. I just wanted to augment your point, that yes we could cut our East Asia presence in half by redeploying the SK forces, but at what price and at what gain?
Thanks also for the Heritage link. There are some interesting numbers, particularily with regards to the Middle-East:
1) We have more troops there in the 2000s (4X) than we did in the 90s. Leading up to the Desert Storm, we redeployed almost 200K out of other overseas locations and afterwards, redeployed them back to the US, so that thru much of the 90s, we only had about 200K. The Balkans crises and ‘containing’ Saddam to his sandbox notwithstanding, our rationale for not going into Rawanda was that we were being stretched too thin with our global commitments.
2) While there may only be about 130K in Iraq (Charts say 217K), we now have about 400K worldwide! This is double the amount that we had all thru the 90s — and about even with what we had thru the 70s & 80s. That means we had over 400K deployed worldwide during the height of the Cold War while staring down the Russians & the Warsaw Pact.
All in all, some interesting stats, I just wish they left the formulas in place because there seems to be some averaging/calculation errors. Only 38K in 1990 & 24K in 1991 for the Middle East?? Maybe the researchers only counted those permanently assigned and not those mobilized up just for Desert Storm. Nonetheless, I haven’t figured how to jibe the difference with the 2003 – 2005 numbers for the Middle East.
Anyway, it goes to my original point, if all we needed was sheer numbers (body count) we can always rustle that up, even with a draft if need be. The issue hinges on projecting and sustaining that force. Realistically, a draft is out of the question, both in terms of quality and morale. Substantially increasing our footprint only exposes us to greater political & logistical risk and diminishing returns. Hence the focus on transformation and leveraging IT as Force Multipliers. We get more bang for the buck from one modern platoon than we would have had with a 1/2 dozen Vietnam-era platoons — doing more in money/tech/training with less troops