Nbadan
11-29-2004, 01:43 AM
Fog of war
Sat Nov 27, 4:42 PM ET
By Julian E. Barnes
Nearly two months after re-establishing an American presence in Samarra, a fortnight after launching a massive assault on insurgents in Fallujah, and a week after beating back a resistance counterattack in Mosul, U.S.-led forces last week mounted their fourth offensive against an insurgent stronghold in Iraq (news - web sites). This one took place in a collection of predominately Sunni villages south of Baghdad given the evocative name "the triangle of death."
In the weeks leading up to Iraq's first democratic election--the planned January 30 vote to select members of a national assembly--American military leaders intend to continue their drive against the insurgency. It is an offense-is-the-best-defense strategy in light of expectations that insurgents will try to stage attacks to disrupt or even derail the elections. How well American and Iraqi forces prevent or at least limit insurgent attacks, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say, will be vital not only to the voting but also to determining how quickly America can start drawing down its military presence in Iraq. "The coming months in Iraq," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intoned last week, "will be crucial."
At the moment, though, the issue at hand is how much to increase U.S. forces in the pre-election period. The Pentagon is planning to have 5,000 extra soldiers--above the current 138,000 troops--to allow American forces to hold recently retaken cities and towns as they continue to press their advance. Military leaders say it is important to keep the most experienced commanders and troops in Iraq for the election even as new forces rotate in. Accordingly, the Pentagon is extending the deployments of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade as well as the headquarters of the 1st Infantry Division. It hasn't gone unnoticed, though, that when the Pentagon last boosted troop strength--during the upsurge in violence last spring--it also did so by extending the tours of the soldiers already in the country. That temporary surge became permanent, and it is possible that this boost in troop levels could last beyond the election period.
Nevertheless, military leaders emphasize that they have learned that force alone is not the answer. "Fallujah was an all-out military victory, but as we've seen before, that is not what it takes," says a senior defense official. What it takes is force followed by diplomacy. U.S. officials hope that their military efforts have begun to persuade residents of other insurgent-riddled areas to be more receptive to negotiation efforts. Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reportedly told visiting Pentagon officials recently that he felt the military's recent efforts to reach out to the Sunni minority and bring them into the process were working.
Impressions. Although there is agreement that military forces need to continue a carrot and stick approach, there is growing debate about just what role U.S. troops should play in the election. For the past month, soldiers on patrol in Baghdad, Baquba, and other cities have been asking Iraqis if they plan to vote in the upcoming election, trying to gauge residents' interest and knowledge; quizzing them, for example, on the location of polling places. But the military command in Baghdad is trying to discourage such well-meaning inquiries to avoid having the election perceived as an American, rather than Iraqi, effort.
There is also a growing debate between the State Department and the Pentagon about what American soldiers should do on Election Day. The Pentagon's concerns: The presence of American soldiers securing election sites could give the impression that the United States is trying to influence the vote and certainly would offer inviting targets to suicide bombers. But will there be enough trained Iraqi police and National Guard forces to safeguard polling stations, particularly in majority Sunni cities? American military officials think so. "The Iraqis want to do it themselves; they want to make sure this election is an Iraqi election," says Lt. Col. Bruce Gillette, who works with the Iraqi election commission. State Department officials, though, have doubts. As a result, says one, "people are preparing for the eventuality that U.S. troops would be the ones ensuring security for the elections."
All along, the Bush administration had been hoping that the United Nations (news - web sites) and other allies would come in and help them pull off the elections. Canada is currently in talks with the United States about taking a role helping Iraq prepare for the elections. But other pledges--like NATO (news - web sites)'s promise to help train troops--have been slow to materialize. "Our goal has been let's start it with the expectation that others will join it," says an American diplomat. "Unfortunately, that hasn't been happening much."
Pentagon officials insist any further increase in troop strength is going to have to come from new Iraqi forces. American officers say Iraqi troops performed well in the fighting in Fallujah--but that was a Sunni city where the soldiers, apparently mainly Shiites and Kurds, felt little tribal or religious affinity with the insurgents. The reality remains that Iraqi National Guard and police units are at best uneven. Many rank-and-file American soldiers remain wary about the abilities, and loyalties, of the Iraqi security forces.
"Breaking the bank."
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that the war is placing an extraordinary strain on U.S. troops and equipment. Desert sand has worn down trucks and guns, and the Army has been spending billions to add armor to its vehicles and supply troops with new flak vests. Says one Army officer, "I do not know how much longer we can do this without breaking the bank." Even if Rumsfeld wanted to increase the number of American troops in Iraq it would be hard to do so. Many active-duty troops have been deployed with but the shortest of breaks since 9/11. Since that date, the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade has been one of the military's busiest. Parts of the brigade have been in Afghanistan (news - web sites), Kosovo, Egypt, and Djibouti, and most of the unit is currently in the midst of a yearlong tour in Iraq. Any expansion of the force would have to come from the Reserves and the National Guard. And the National Guard has been used more than any time since World War II. Currently, 94,000 Army national guardsmen are mobilized. Since 9/11, 192,500 of the 350,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard have been mobilized. Calling up many more would mean that there would be fewer left for homeland defense, and there would be fewer ready for tours of duty two years from now. Already National Guard enlistments are way down, in part because of potential recruits' concerns about repeated deployments. "There would be a price to pay" to mobilize more units, says one Army officer. "You are dipping into the pool. You'd be betting that the end was in sight."
There is a growing call both outside and inside the Pentagon to consider placing just such a bet. The best strategy for taking on the insurgency may entail making a big push to crush the resistance and then planning for a quick pullout. A growing number of military analysts argue that America is caught in a paradox: U.S. soldiers at present are vital to Iraqi security, but it is the American presence that helps fuel the insurgency. Without U.S. troops' occupying Iraq, some contend, there would be less support for insurgents. "Our presence is a problem," says Michael Vickers, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent think tank. "I think there is broad support for withdrawing troops, but the devil is in the details."
Some defense officials say such talk of a pullout is premature, but last week Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seemed to keep the door open. The election, Myers said, "will allow us to start looking at, if events dictate, how we can rearrange ourselves."
As the past year has shown, that will be no easy task, but military commanders believe the Iraqi election is an opportunity that must be seized.
Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnews/20041127/ts_usnews/fogofwar&cid=926&ncid=1473)
Molly Ivins wrote something to the effect of "when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging." Not only is BushCo in a hole, the top edges are falling in on them - the deficit of spending all the money on Iraq is driving down the dollar. And we are sending folks over 40 to fight in an arena in which even the young have difficulty.
Something somewhere will give, it is only matter of time. Unfortunately, it will be ugly when it does.
Sat Nov 27, 4:42 PM ET
By Julian E. Barnes
Nearly two months after re-establishing an American presence in Samarra, a fortnight after launching a massive assault on insurgents in Fallujah, and a week after beating back a resistance counterattack in Mosul, U.S.-led forces last week mounted their fourth offensive against an insurgent stronghold in Iraq (news - web sites). This one took place in a collection of predominately Sunni villages south of Baghdad given the evocative name "the triangle of death."
In the weeks leading up to Iraq's first democratic election--the planned January 30 vote to select members of a national assembly--American military leaders intend to continue their drive against the insurgency. It is an offense-is-the-best-defense strategy in light of expectations that insurgents will try to stage attacks to disrupt or even derail the elections. How well American and Iraqi forces prevent or at least limit insurgent attacks, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials say, will be vital not only to the voting but also to determining how quickly America can start drawing down its military presence in Iraq. "The coming months in Iraq," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intoned last week, "will be crucial."
At the moment, though, the issue at hand is how much to increase U.S. forces in the pre-election period. The Pentagon is planning to have 5,000 extra soldiers--above the current 138,000 troops--to allow American forces to hold recently retaken cities and towns as they continue to press their advance. Military leaders say it is important to keep the most experienced commanders and troops in Iraq for the election even as new forces rotate in. Accordingly, the Pentagon is extending the deployments of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade as well as the headquarters of the 1st Infantry Division. It hasn't gone unnoticed, though, that when the Pentagon last boosted troop strength--during the upsurge in violence last spring--it also did so by extending the tours of the soldiers already in the country. That temporary surge became permanent, and it is possible that this boost in troop levels could last beyond the election period.
Nevertheless, military leaders emphasize that they have learned that force alone is not the answer. "Fallujah was an all-out military victory, but as we've seen before, that is not what it takes," says a senior defense official. What it takes is force followed by diplomacy. U.S. officials hope that their military efforts have begun to persuade residents of other insurgent-riddled areas to be more receptive to negotiation efforts. Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi reportedly told visiting Pentagon officials recently that he felt the military's recent efforts to reach out to the Sunni minority and bring them into the process were working.
Impressions. Although there is agreement that military forces need to continue a carrot and stick approach, there is growing debate about just what role U.S. troops should play in the election. For the past month, soldiers on patrol in Baghdad, Baquba, and other cities have been asking Iraqis if they plan to vote in the upcoming election, trying to gauge residents' interest and knowledge; quizzing them, for example, on the location of polling places. But the military command in Baghdad is trying to discourage such well-meaning inquiries to avoid having the election perceived as an American, rather than Iraqi, effort.
There is also a growing debate between the State Department and the Pentagon about what American soldiers should do on Election Day. The Pentagon's concerns: The presence of American soldiers securing election sites could give the impression that the United States is trying to influence the vote and certainly would offer inviting targets to suicide bombers. But will there be enough trained Iraqi police and National Guard forces to safeguard polling stations, particularly in majority Sunni cities? American military officials think so. "The Iraqis want to do it themselves; they want to make sure this election is an Iraqi election," says Lt. Col. Bruce Gillette, who works with the Iraqi election commission. State Department officials, though, have doubts. As a result, says one, "people are preparing for the eventuality that U.S. troops would be the ones ensuring security for the elections."
All along, the Bush administration had been hoping that the United Nations (news - web sites) and other allies would come in and help them pull off the elections. Canada is currently in talks with the United States about taking a role helping Iraq prepare for the elections. But other pledges--like NATO (news - web sites)'s promise to help train troops--have been slow to materialize. "Our goal has been let's start it with the expectation that others will join it," says an American diplomat. "Unfortunately, that hasn't been happening much."
Pentagon officials insist any further increase in troop strength is going to have to come from new Iraqi forces. American officers say Iraqi troops performed well in the fighting in Fallujah--but that was a Sunni city where the soldiers, apparently mainly Shiites and Kurds, felt little tribal or religious affinity with the insurgents. The reality remains that Iraqi National Guard and police units are at best uneven. Many rank-and-file American soldiers remain wary about the abilities, and loyalties, of the Iraqi security forces.
"Breaking the bank."
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that the war is placing an extraordinary strain on U.S. troops and equipment. Desert sand has worn down trucks and guns, and the Army has been spending billions to add armor to its vehicles and supply troops with new flak vests. Says one Army officer, "I do not know how much longer we can do this without breaking the bank." Even if Rumsfeld wanted to increase the number of American troops in Iraq it would be hard to do so. Many active-duty troops have been deployed with but the shortest of breaks since 9/11. Since that date, the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade has been one of the military's busiest. Parts of the brigade have been in Afghanistan (news - web sites), Kosovo, Egypt, and Djibouti, and most of the unit is currently in the midst of a yearlong tour in Iraq. Any expansion of the force would have to come from the Reserves and the National Guard. And the National Guard has been used more than any time since World War II. Currently, 94,000 Army national guardsmen are mobilized. Since 9/11, 192,500 of the 350,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard have been mobilized. Calling up many more would mean that there would be fewer left for homeland defense, and there would be fewer ready for tours of duty two years from now. Already National Guard enlistments are way down, in part because of potential recruits' concerns about repeated deployments. "There would be a price to pay" to mobilize more units, says one Army officer. "You are dipping into the pool. You'd be betting that the end was in sight."
There is a growing call both outside and inside the Pentagon to consider placing just such a bet. The best strategy for taking on the insurgency may entail making a big push to crush the resistance and then planning for a quick pullout. A growing number of military analysts argue that America is caught in a paradox: U.S. soldiers at present are vital to Iraqi security, but it is the American presence that helps fuel the insurgency. Without U.S. troops' occupying Iraq, some contend, there would be less support for insurgents. "Our presence is a problem," says Michael Vickers, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent think tank. "I think there is broad support for withdrawing troops, but the devil is in the details."
Some defense officials say such talk of a pullout is premature, but last week Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seemed to keep the door open. The election, Myers said, "will allow us to start looking at, if events dictate, how we can rearrange ourselves."
As the past year has shown, that will be no easy task, but military commanders believe the Iraqi election is an opportunity that must be seized.
Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnews/20041127/ts_usnews/fogofwar&cid=926&ncid=1473)
Molly Ivins wrote something to the effect of "when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging." Not only is BushCo in a hole, the top edges are falling in on them - the deficit of spending all the money on Iraq is driving down the dollar. And we are sending folks over 40 to fight in an arena in which even the young have difficulty.
Something somewhere will give, it is only matter of time. Unfortunately, it will be ugly when it does.