Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer


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."

___

On the Net:

Schoomaker's official biography at http://www.army.mil/leaders/csa/bio.htm

Good to see Gen.Schoomaker telling it like it is--or should I say could be.
The American public is a lot more willing to face bad news if it is given in a timely fashion and honestly stated.
The next few years will be difficult for the military and for the American public.With the mass media bleating the liberal refrain of "war is bad",the American public needs to hear from the military on a regular basis and told the truth.Otherwise the media will destroy America's confidence in our military,like it did during Viet Nam.IMHO

The truth is good and will be accepted because this nation was built on hardship.

Don't lay it all to the media for the war news, the political arena has not been too forthcomming in its discussion of the war and the positive side of things.

I can deal with the truth, now we need to build up the manpower in our armed forces. Mobilizations and deployments is taking a toll on a lot of our military personnel, the more we have rotating overseas is better for others coming back to stay at home a little longer with family.

Fun, I'll still have plenty of time over there as soon as I join

SICK!!!

quote:

Originally posted by fwilli52:
I can deal with the truth, now we need to build up the manpower in our armed forces. Mobilizations and deployments is taking a toll on a lot of our military personnel, the more we have rotating overseas is better for others coming back to stay at home a little longer with family.

All the Armed Forces met or exceeded both new recruit and re-enlistment goals this FY (as opposed to last FY when there was a little bit of a bump in retention). Some of the most deployed units exceeded re-enlistment goals. Although, one has to wonder, were these goals lowered after last year's troubles?

one thing is for sure, this war will be over in 2008/2009 unless the american people want to sink this country by electing the wrong candidate.

Engineers have no political boundrys.

You appear to think that at a certain date in time, all this will become something in the past and we move on to other issues....just because its an election year?

Are you referring to our countries stated goal to ensuring Iraqi government is functioning and able to stand on its own, or are you referring Afganistan, or the to the war on terror?

They are each separate agendas for our nation.The war on terror alone is already defining election platforms on both sides. Neither the democraps or republicans want to appear weak on our nations security, nor to they want to be seen as leaving avenues open to terrorist attack like the last time. On top of all this, the President that does get elected has to ensure our nations economy stays intact and that it continues to grow.

As for Iraq and Afganistan, these are noble ventures our nation has undertaken, as well as following up on our committment to the peoples of those two nations. It is the right thing to do, and yes, even if it costs the lives of Americans to make it successful. Blood is the catalyst required to build a nation. No nation has ever risen from anything less.

But then you should already know this, as you yourself enlisted and made the committment with the knowledge that you might have been called upon to die while serving your country.

I believe it will be like vietnam when Nixson took office he stopped the war and pulled out. Iraq is a mirror image of vietnam, with maybe some small differences but the big picture is the same. I am no longer in the guard now by the way.

Blood is the catalyst required to build a nation. No nation has ever risen from anything less.

Sure thats true, but it can be iraq's blood not ours, we had our civil war and our revolutionary war and we did not have whole armys supporting our cause. We had help but not to the extent that we are in iraq.

If the american people dont support it anymore, it doesnt matter how noble it is, it should not be happening but thats what elections are for

Maybe because I am a warmonger, I don't want to see the war end soon. War fuels technological development in the best way. More equipment was fielded and tested in the mere 4 years of global operations, than the defense contractors could have ever hoped for.
Then again, I am assigned as a recruiter. I only got 14 months in the CZ before I was reassigned here. Without a war, a Cavalry Scout in the U.S. Army is somehwat unemployed. Training is essential, but real-time experience in the sandbox makes for more effective leaders the second go-around (in theory).
I also agree with Gunny. He puts it more eloquently than I. HUA.

In fact we are due for another civil war to muck out our own country, but thats a whole other issue.

quote:

Sure thats true, but it can be iraq's blood not ours, we had our civil war and our revolutionary war and we did not have whole armys supporting our cause. We had help but not to the extent that we are in iraq.

So why were the French here fighting during the Revolution? They certainly were an army (*snicker* never thought I'd say that).

Its just confusing that you want the war to go on but dont support a draft?

I do not support a draft, because I am a U.S. Army Recruiter. Applicants to the military are not the same caliber of Soldiers/Marines/Sailors/Airmen, that once were. They aren't even shadows of the men and women before them.
In the Day and Age of tolerance and sensitivity, our latest generation of "future leaders" are soft.
Besides, the draft exists. And it is alive and well in Modern America. Read very closely how the Selective Service System works.
Take particular note of the verbage used.
http://www.sss.gov

rppearso... Many draftees that found themselves standing tall and getting sent into harms way, performed admirably, and with distinction.

Based entirely on your comments since joining this board, I get the impression that you would not have fit into that category.

As for CavScouts assertion that the war needs to continue, sure it does, as he correctly pointed out, the technological advances we are making generally only occur during a time of war. Be honest, didn't you watch with anticipation when those videos depicting a strike on terrorist locations, and saw the video of a 1000lb bomb flying right through a window? Or the video of a Mercedes driving through a desert road, and the missle hitting the car, that was guided by a remotely piloted vehicle? (UCAV)

Just because you personally, don't have the stomach for war, doesn't make the war wrong.

I completely agree with everything you said gunny, but it still does not answer why you would not support a draft. I just dont get the attitude that my guard unit had when I left. They are so short of officers it kept the major up at night that I was quiting, it sounds to me that they need more people, maybe it is just isolated to my particular state but I doubt it.

Those draftees that accept the fact that they either adapt to the military way or they die, do pretty good in the military. Those that can't accept the situation, (shit, I'm drafted, what can I do to get out of here type) are a direct danger not only to themselves, but to everyone around them in a combat zone. They devote more energy and time doing everything to get out and resist all efforts to train, creates an undue burden on those that only want to survive in the zone.

Just so you know, I do not appeciate your ealier statment that Iraq is a mirror image of Vietnam. There is no comparison and the fact that you link the two in such a manner is distrubing and quite baffling to me. I can start off with a good list of the specific differences:
1)North Vietnam Communist Iraq Dictator
2)South Vietnam Democratic Iraq Dictator
3)Vietnam N+S Jungle Iraq Desert
4)Vietnam US casualties fro 1964 to 1975
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
4) Iraq US Casualties to date:
A total of 2,269 Americans have been killed, including 490 non-combat deaths. (Feb. 11, 2006). 15,955 were wounded (Dec. 3, 2005). Coalition deaths: Britain, 100; Italy, 27; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 17; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Slovakia, 3; Thailand, 2; Estonia, 2; The Netherlands, 2; Denmark, 2; El Salvador, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Latvia, 1 each (Feb. 11, 2006).
I included the Coalition count for a reminder of those countries sacrifices made in standing with us. We are not alone in all of this and some would have you think. I didn't even include the first Gulf war. Saddam invaded Kuwait on 12 August, and I was on the ground on 22 August for the entire duration. I was also in Beruit in 1983. If you don't connect the referenced date and location, I recommend you look it up.

There are without a doubt many more ways to look at this situation, so all I ask of you is to take the time and consider carefully before you make judgement against the military just because you had a bad experience during your short exposure to us. Perhaps this information might help you to understand why we actively seek out those not suited to our requirements and needs and cull them out.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thegunny,

I don't get why there is the distiction that because a unit is short officers, that means anything. Unless an officer has more than 3 years in service, they are honestly no different than a Private. In no way are they subject matter experts, they are learning. I will take a Specialist that knows his job, than a 1st LT any day of the week. The E-4 listens, does what he's told, and executes; whereas LTs will rebutt that they "are Lieutenants!", and "in school, we did this", etc. And somehow view the Officer Corps as some lofty class above the NCO or Enlisted Personnel.