LibriumArcana.Games

Article

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.
ADVERTISEMENT


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."

*twirls fingers* Joy. If the army's there that means the AF will be there too, or at least Spec Ops will be to support the mission. Woo-fucking-hoo. Just when I think there might be a possibility of us getting the fuck out of there and not interfering with any more foreign countries for awhile, why lookie here...We're not pulling out, we're not reducing our numbers, we're keeping them there. Yay.

*twirls fingers* Joy. If the army's there that means the AF will be there too, or at least Spec Ops will be to support the mission. Woo-fucking-hoo. Just when I think there might be a possibility of us getting the fuck out of there and not interfering with any more foreign countries for awhile, why lookie here...We're not pulling out, we're not reducing our numbers, we're keeping them there. Yay.

This was never going to be a short campaign and I wouldn't trust any one that ever said it was. These campaigns take a long time, we only need to look at Kosovo for that. And that wasn't half the conflict that is Iraq or Afghanistan.

Bush said it honestly when he said this might last a long, long time. Any one saying it's lot is lying or delusional.

Bush sold the war on it being an "over by Christmas" affair. In case you have difficulty with remember that do big banners of aircraft carriers, strutting in flight suits, and the phrase "greated as liberators" might jog your memory? They didn't start talking about it being a long campaign until it the American public began to clue it that they might be in for a long stay.

It's going to be a long campaign, granted. But from the way things are shaping up here, judging by the polls and recent media events, this is going to turn into another Vietnam.

Yes, Saddam needed to be taken out, but he should have been taken out years ago during the first Gulf War when we had the oppertunity. So instead we wait about a decade and go to war with Iraq again. We get them to change their form of government, we get them to start settling down and come up with a working constitution and fair political regime. And we still don't want to pull out.

You do have to question when is enough enough? I haven't been over there half a long or half as often as some of the marines and army troops and I'm damned sick of seeing it. I really do not see a real reason for our continued level of troops. We're loosing more and more troops in a war that is supposedly over. Why the hell are we still deploying to this place?

Oh the love of whine. You wanna have to come back and do it again in 5 to 10 years? Then pull out.

You think this is a heavy lost rate? Unless you're an iraqi who's highjacked B4's account then you got no fucking clue. We (the Americans, the natives have lost more people due to being blown up by fucking terrorist.) haven't even matched the loses of 911 in over 2 years. That's hardly a fucking bloodbath and frankly if you think this is a Vietnam you only prove your ignorence of history. If you like we can call up some of the ground troops who have been there post-Saddam and let them chew on you.


The only way out that ensures safety for the Iraqis and for us is to win this. Even if we win it's going to sting... Alot. Welcome to the world, suck it the fuck up.

We never really fully pulled out after the first Gulf War so obviously it didn't help that much to stay there. We weren't active but we did have the forces right there to act if needed.

In my reference to Vietnam I'm apparently not the only one who's made that connection. Full article here

Senator Chuck Hagel Paraphrased wrote: the war in
Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Chuck Hagel wrote:"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

After recent incidents with pro- and anti- war camps setting up sites outside of Bush's home in Texas and other similar events happening all over the nation and the drawing of the media attention to them, this is turning into something that it similar to then with the very divided nation over a war. Again, something that is similar to what happened during Vietnam.

And while I'm definatly not a ground troop as you can say, I have been over there post-Saddam. I've had a glimpse or two of what's happening over there. I've seen how bad it is in some places. I won't dispute the situation as being anything other then bad.

And while I don't like us being blown up by terrorists, I do have issues with deploying over and over to a country that we will never win over with our prescense and that we will continiously lose troops in simply because we are American. This is the same a lot of places any more it seems. One must wonder why this is really.

I can't really see this as ensuring safety, for either side. Obviously we do now need to help them set up the government but after that, why do we need to stay for another planed 4 years? We tore down their existing structures of power and now have to put something in place of it but do we need to police their country for them for years after this? If we pull out and the democracy thing fails for them we'll go back in and do this again. And when we set up their government for them again and it fails and we've proped up the government as much as possible and it collapses then what? How many times will we try it if it doesn't work? You have to seriously consider the fact that you're trying to get a national constitution that's agreeable upon by all parties, some of which could be considered near zealotical in their adherance to some religious laws. And you're trying to make this a fair equitable system between parties and factions that have been squabling and waring in some cases for years. And then you're setting a deadline on it. I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing this being something that's going to last.

And we're sitting here talking about supporting well over 100,000 troops in the middle east for an additional 4 years. Where are you getting this funding and troops? There won't be a National Guard or Army Reserve left at that point. The Air Force is downsizing rapidly, we're loosing large amounts of people and are feeling that pinch in some areas painfully. While re-enlistment of the Navy and Army are up, actual first enlistment is down save for officer ranks it seems.

The Army has reported that it's booked for it's Officer Training School. It also projects that it was about 6% over its goal of re-enlistments for the '05 fiscal year which ends on 30 Sept. But it then goes to report a 15% deficency in first term enlistments even after its new 15 month term of service idea. And yes they report 6% more re-enlistments then they had thought they'd get but you then have to consider that depending on your job you can get anywhere from $1000 to $150,000(I duely note, rare and hard to get. I believe only high ranking spec ops can get it) in bonuses tax free if you re-enlist while in Afghanastan or Iraq. Average bonus was slightly over $10,000.

National Guard and Army Reserve both mentioned their recruitment numbers were down as well. I couldn't find anything about Marines. And if the Air Force is hell bent on getting people out you can guess what our enlistment rates are.

Now consider, and I know you know some of these numbers already Frigid, all the other money each military member gets while deployed. And all of it tax free which adds up quick. Basic Pay, depending on rank and time in for enlisted ranges from a bit over $1200 to a bit over $5200 a month. Officers range from $2300 to over $13,700. For base pay. Now throw in your BAH which starts at $670 a month but depending on area can be a lot more, BAS which is about $270, if married your Family Seperation pay which is $150, Hostile Fire pay which is $150, depending on your job you can get up to an additional $850 in bonuses for hazardous duty, being a pilot or being a "airborne" troop which ammounts to being qualified to fly with the plane. Then you have your COLA for some places and then Per Diem for being TDY/Deployed. Again, all tax free.

Now I'm not saying that's not a damned sweet deal. The money you make while you're over there is damned good don't get me wrong. But you have to consider that's an assload of money. I myself make a little over $3000 a month every time I see the sandbox. Tax free. Now I'm only an E-4, and used that as an average for that figure. E-4, 3 years in, less then 4 years in, lowest BAH/BAS, Hostile Fire and $150 for job bonus for being "Airborne". Now using that as an average, that's over $302 million a month for 100,000 troops($3027.10 * 100k). There are more then 100k troops and there are enlisted that would make easily double what I make there. And that's not counting officers. Over 300million a month for troops deployed to Iraq. Now over the course of a year that's what, about 3.63 billion? Give or take a million. Now over an additional 4 year time span, that comes out to about 14.5 billion in troop pay. And thats just for troops deployed currently to Iraq and Afghanastan. That is a lot of money, realistically speaking.

Where are we going to get all of this? All the troops and money to finance and fight this thing for another 4 years? You say it is neccessary. I personally don't. But that's just me. But even if it is one of those things were we go for the long stretch, you have to figure out where we're getting all of this from. Enlistment rates are dropping across the board, morale is low in a lot of cases with over 30% of units reporting very low morale. I'm sure morale is great with the more gung-ho types or those who honestly believe that their job is making a difference or doing some good. I'm not saying it's not mind you, but it's a mentality when you get to it. Now those three things put together don't speak well of re-enlistment rates to come being nearly so high. I foresee that unless the military institutes Stop-Loss in a few years troop numbers across the board are going to go down rapidly. And with Stop-Loss you're going to have a lot of very unhappy troops.

Regardless, it's going to be interesting to see how Bush plans to do this when he more fully outlines his 4 year war plan and "reassures" the American populace that this is right, noble and good.



And on an unrelated note, I managed to find one of the pics from when one of my planes crashed over in Iraq last Dec. One hell of a mess let me tell you... Fucking idiot army ATCs. I mean really, who the fuck tells a plane to land on a bombed out runway with a hole in the middle of it the size of a city bus in the middle of the damned night with no lights knowing that their FLIR system was N/U and their NVGs didn't have enough light to pick up a good reading?



For those curious, that's a MC-130H Combat Talon II, number 0012. Pissed me off to, it was one of our better birds. Instead we got shafted with another non-functional flying brick from Kadena again. 0192. By Chemosh's rotting teat that is one of the worst planes I've ever had the misfortune to work on...

Regardless of the circumstances and reasoning for going into Iraq, the US is there now and did their thing. Now they can either follow through and finish up what they promised or withdraw prematurely, making the entire effort and losses a wasted and pointless affair.

The stronger comparison here would be the Phillipines. Vietnam was another Cold War proxy war that was underwritten by the Chinese and Soviets, with a regular military providing a good deal of the opposition (indeed, practically all of the opposition post-Tet, when the VC were essentially annihilated.)

The campaign in the PI was not popular in its day either, and as we all know it added up to a hell of a long-term commitment, considering we're still putting troops in over there to help deal with the recurrent insurgencies, albeit at much lower levels.

Of course you're not the first one to make the connection between Iraq and Vietnam; protesters have been holding signs saying "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam" since Day 1. Doesn't make it so.

Robert Walper wrote:Now they can either follow through and finish up what they promised or withdraw prematurely, making the entire effort and losses a wasted and pointless affair.

Finish yes. Finish and stay years afterwards? No.

Petrosjko wrote:The stronger comparison here would be the Phillipines.

I truthfully hadn't remembered the Phillipines. I was thinking more along the lines of a nation divided on a foreign war and Vietnam was the strongest one in my mind with similar circumstances. I'll have to look into the political atmosphere surrounding that one a bit more to see what the similarities are.

Rogue 9 wrote:protesters have been holding signs saying "Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam" since Day 1. Doesn't make it so.

Can honestly say I've never seen that particular slogan on a poster or sign. Interesting though.

And while, yes, it doesn't make it Vietnam all over again, there are enough similarities in the thoughts and emotions of the nation to make a good comparison. The views of the nation, the public opinion of the President's decisions regarding the war, the troops' opinions, the troop loss, etc. All similar to that of Vietnam. If memory serves, and please correct me if I'm wrong on my counting here, but we haven't lost this many troops in a war since Vietnam.

Of course, again saying it doesn't make it so. But then again people have been saying it's 1984 since Bush got into office and have made numerous comparisons to it. This is, of course, an analogy and while I believe that Bush has represed some civil liberties in his administration, that's a seperate arguement from this one and I'll not go into here.

But, just because something isn't 100% factually the same or alike, doesn't mean they're not similar or close to being alike.

B4UTRUST wrote:In my reference to Vietnam I'm apparently not the only one who's made that connection. Full article here

Senator Chuck Hagel Paraphrased wrote: the war in
Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Chuck Hagel wrote:"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

And of course a Senator would never stoop to saying untrue things for his own political benefit.

I'm not overly inclined to trust a politician one way or the other. It's rough but frankly Hagel is more concerned with making or retaining political capital. The war is becoming unpopular so naturally he's going to do what every politician does, cover his own backside first.

B4UTRUST wrote:After recent incidents with pro- and anti- war camps setting up sites outside of Bush's home in Texas and other similar events happening all over the nation and the drawing of the media attention to them, this is turning into something that it similar to then with the very divided nation over a war. Again, something that is similar to what happened during Vietnam. \

Wanna-be hippies have been screaming about Vietnam before we even went to war. So the only common denominator with that is their shameful behaviour.



I won't claim this is going to be easy. But frankly, I think the constant doom-mongering in the media has simply defined the nature of the debate too much to trust political or media commentary. These people have an agenda that has precious little to do with the truth. And after hearing from soldiers that have been over there that it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be, I'm far more inclined to trust them. It's a long haul but the Vietnam-Whores are overstating it.

Cynical Cat wrote:Bush sold the war on it being an "over by Christmas" affair. In case you have difficulty with remember that do big banners of aircraft carriers, strutting in flight suits, and the phrase "greated as liberators" might jog your memory? They didn't start talking about it being a long campaign until it the American public began to clue it that they might be in for a long stay.

I'm not impressed by Bush's selling of the war or his conduct. He hasn't been straightfoward about what the real odds, let the favorable intelligence dictate things, and has generally not been forthcoming. Regardless of my support for the war I remain disappointed, and even angry at times, about his conduct.

As for what was likely, just becaue he said it doesn't make it so. Clinton said the same thing about Kosovo, suprise we're still there. Such campaigns always take a long time and that's just a fact.

As for the actual conduct about the war, all the good things I can say about this bunch is that at least it's not Clinton's. I could rant at length about their mistakes, in Iraq and in general.

You were the one who was praising them for being honest about admitting it was going to take some time Stormy, I was just reminding you that's not how they first sold it.

As for Clinton, that's a red herring. I'm not one of Slick Willy's fans but Bush doesn't get off the hook by saying "You know, I think Clinton would have done worse," even if that could be somehow established to be true.

On the Vietnam comparisons, that comes up every time we even contemplate military action, though it's more commonly heard from among the antiwar left's usual suspects.

It came up a little with the first Gulf War, it came up a bit with Kosovo, and it came up regularly with Afghanistan as well as prior to the second Gulf War.

Take the term 'quagmire', a favorite among that subset. I was reading an article about our Afghanistan quagmire the day that Kabul fell.

Cynical Cat wrote:You were the one who was praising them for being honest about admitting it was going to take some time Stormy, I was just reminding you that's not how they first sold it.

I've said he was being honest when he said this and the war on terror in general would take a long time. There have been rare moments when he has admitted that the the whole thing was going to be a long term enterprise. That would be the honesty.

When was it that I praised the distortions and lies? Oh wait, just in your head.

Cynical Cat wrote:As for Clinton, that's a red herring. I'm not one of Slick Willy's fans but Bush doesn't get off the hook by saying "You know, I think Clinton would have done worse," even if that could be somehow established to be true.

I only referenced Clinton was in saying that Rumsfeld and Cheney's only virtue when it came to defense was not being Clinton's administration. Or did you perhaps it was the time when I said that any one that believed Bush's statement was ignorant of the truth of these nation building campaigns, the last one being Kosovo? Never mind at all that I never said it let either off the hook, just that such claims have always been mostly 100% post bull content.

Petrosjko wrote:On the Vietnam comparisons, that comes up every time we even contemplate military action, though it's more commonly heard from among the antiwar left's usual suspects.

Thats because it's their one and only victory. They want to trumpet that and never mind that most of them couldn't drawn sort of meaningful conection at all.

When was it that I praised the distortions and lies? Oh wait, just in your head.

When did I say you were praising distortions and lies? In your head. I merely pointed out that your example was flawed because they had already lied about it being a quick war and they finally admitted it was going to take a while when it became obvious to everyone. Finally acknowledging the truth after lying about it is not an praiseworthy act of honesty. Telling people that before you invade the country and commit yourselves to staying there for an untold number of years is.

I only referenced Clinton was in saying that Rumsfeld and Cheney's only virtue when it came to defense was not being Clinton's administration.

You said:

As for the actual conduct about the war, all the good things I can say about this bunch is that at least it's not Clinton's. I could rant at length about their mistakes, in Iraq and in general.

That sounds like an accusation that Clinton would be worse and it looks a lot like a red herring to me.

Cynical Cat wrote:When did I say you were praising distortions and lies? In your head.

You're the one that's saying I praised anything, as a matter of fact there was nothing I praised period. I simple pointed out that Bush in his more honest moments, before and now, had admitted it would take a while.

Cynical Cat wrote:I merely pointed out that your example was flawed because they had already lied about it being a quick war and they finally admitted it was going to take a while when it became obvious to everyone. Finally acknowledging the truth after lying about it is not an praiseworthy act of honesty. Telling people that before you invade the country and commit yourselves to staying there for an untold number of years is.

All I ever said was that any one but a damned fool should have known that this wasn't going to be quick. Unfortunately America is full of damned fools both for listening and for shying away from anything like a commitment. Bush at the very least sold them the best case and they took that for gospel.

Cynical Cat wrote:That sounds like an accusation that Clinton would be worse and it looks a lot like a red herring to me.

You're the one harping on it instead of the bulk of what I said. Which is typical, any mention of Clinto must of course derail any other discussion. If you want to argue Clinton by all means create a thread.

You're the one that's saying I praised anything, as a matter of fact there was nothing I praised period. I simple pointed out that Bush in his more honest moments, before and now, had admitted it would take a while.

I was merely pointing out that it wasn't honest of him to finally stop lying when it is obvious that he was. That's all.

Cynical Cat wrote:
Bush sold the war on it being an "over by Christmas" affair. In case you have difficulty with remember that do big banners of aircraft carriers, strutting in flight suits, and the phrase "greated as liberators" might jog your memory? They didn't start talking about it being a long campaign until it the American public began to clue it that they might be in for a long stay.

Stormbringer:

I'm not impressed by Bush's selling of the war or his conduct. He hasn't been straightfoward about what the real odds, let the favorable intelligence dictate things, and has generally not been forthcoming. Regardless of my support for the war I remain disappointed, and even angry at times, about his conduct.

As for what was likely, just becaue he said it doesn't make it so. Clinton said the same thing about Kosovo, suprise we're still there. Such campaigns always take a long time and that's just a fact.

As for the actual conduct about the war, all the good things I can say about this bunch is that at least it's not Clinton's. I could rant at length about their mistakes, in Iraq and in general.[/quote]

Aside from quoting me, the Clinton references make up a large chunk of your post. That's not a throw away remark or me ignoring the bulk of your post. I have no interest in discussing Clinton and his failings, but I'm not the one who felt the need to compare him to Bush.

Aside from quoting me, the Clinton references make up a large chunk of your post. That's not a throw away remark or me ignoring the bulk of your post. I have no interest in discussing Clinton and his failings, but I'm not the one who felt the need to compare him to Bush.

And holy shit, I cited a historical precedent involving Clinton! TO ARMS LIBERAL DEFENDERS! Jesus tap dancing Christ, get a clue.

My point was simple that whenever the US has gotten involved in nation building it's taken a long time, a lot of many, and a lot of manpower. And that we've always been told that it won't despite the facts and precedent. I could have cited the US and mexico during the early part of the century, I could have cited the US and the Phillipines in the same period, Europe and Japan after WWII, any of our Cold War adventures like Korea, or even Hati during Clinton's first term. But ultimately I chose the most recent example because it would be most familiar. And you blindly fixated on that.

GET THE FUCK OF IT YOU KNEE JERKING IDEALOGUE. I didn't defend Bush by referencing Clinton, and at best it's pointing out both as liars. It was simply refering to the fact that contrary to every president's promises to the contrary nation building takes time and in this case more than a few lives. It's pointing out that anyone with a decent grasp of even recent political history should have realized that at best those were optomistic predictions.

Maybe I was knee jerk and you certainly have a point about using a recent example of nation building. But I do not think my reaction was unjustified. I have seen far too many right wingers defend Bush by saying "Evil Bill Clinton would have been worse" and your statement was "at least the it's not Clinton." Whatever you want to call your statement, it wasn't apolitical.

Cynical Cat wrote:Maybe I was knee jerk and you certainly have a point about using a recent example of nation building. But I do not think my reaction was unjustified. I have seen far too many right wingers defend Bush by saying "Evil Bill Clinton would have been worse" and your statement was "at least the it's not Clinton." Whatever you want to call your statement, it wasn't apolitical.

The first part certainly was and if the last part contained a minor shot at the Clinton adminstration, it was a small part of a much larger statement. Don't read more into that or make a bigger deal of it than is there.