Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq

Joeychgo

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
6,044
Reaction score
193
Location
Chicago, IL
Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
Published August 20, 2005, 6:53 PM CDT



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."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ats-ap_top10aug20,1,6343204.story?coll=chi-news-hed



4 more years huh -- whats that make, 8 total? Not to mention lost lives of our gallant soldiers and of course, how many billions? Gotta be over a trillion dollars before its all over.

Lemmie toss an idea out there. What if we took that Trillion + Dollars and dumped it into research and development of an affordable gasoline replacement? Whatever that might be. Maybe a synthetic gasonline, or something like that. Think a trillion + would be enough to achieve that goal? Lets see, if that happened, then what? Hmmm, all these middle east countries wouldnt have the funding for all this terrorist stuff maybe. Hey, maybe we wouldnt be talking about $6 a gallon gas in a year if ---- well, you all get the idea...




------------------------------
 
hi sorry I haven't really replied to any of these type of posts before but this draws the line.

I'm not too fond of the war as some of you might know.

In Ohio one of our small suburb lost entire platoon this past month and its been so hard on me because I grew up with some of them they where a reserve group that when up and that where killed together so I am not in full agreement and I will not vote for bush or any other bush ever again.
 
Last edited:
I support the troops and for a community to lose so many at one time is a tragedy, hopefully this will end sometime soon and the troops can come home with HONOR.
 
The troops are honorable, it's the CIC that I have a problem with. Joey, I like your idea but it will never happen with an oilman as President. Even the puppet strings need to be lubricated.
 
bigdog1279 said:
hi sorry I haven't really replied to any of these type of posts before but this draws the line.

I'm not too fond of the war as some of you might know.

In Ohio one of our small suburb lost entire platoon this past month and its been so hard on me because I grew up with some of them they where a reserve group that when up and that where killed together so I am not in full agreement and I will not vote for bush or any other bush ever again.

That's all fine and dandy, but doesn't address the problem. Tell those deadbeats in the Congress to fish or cut bait. Let the military take care of the military situation in a military manner without being hobbled by political micro-mismanagement from thousands of miles away. Stop using our troops as a whipping boy for your political agendas. Bush is done for, many of those in Congress can be around for decades screwing us over. Think about it.
 
all i can say is bush wont be around for another term
but whos comming next
 
bigdog1279 said:
hi sorry I haven't really replied to any of these type of posts before but this draws the line.

I'm not too fond of the war as some of you might know.

In Ohio one of our small suburb lost entire platoon this past month and its been so hard on me because I grew up with some of them they where a reserve group that when up and that where killed together so I am not in full agreement and I will not vote for bush or any other bush ever again.

So you are looking at this emotionally. I certainly feel for you. That would suck for anybody to lose their childhood friends to a war. I can't imagine how it was in the forties during WWII, when we lost hundreds of thousands of troops. This isn't nearly as bad, although for you it hits home in a more personal way.
 
Well, get used to it. We occupied Germany for almost 50 years AFTER WWII ended.


It's called stabilization, Fiberals. Read a book.
 
Anything besides reading op-eds seems to be beyond them fossten. Unless it says something in the title like "Shrub sucks!!!!" Then they won't read it.
 
MAllen82 said:
Anything besides reading op-eds seems to be beyond them fossten. Unless it says something in the title like "Shrub sucks!!!!" Then they won't read it.

I guarantee you that Phil doesn't read the articles he posts. He wouldn't post half of them if he did read them, b/c they have so many errors, mistakes, and flaws in logic. Phil sees a headline, like you said, and grabs it.
 
well i say they dont want us ther so just let them be we helped them and they still tell us to get out so let them die man
 
but no we cant do that couse we are america a free world that beloves and freedome right :)
 
History shows that all armies are lead into battle for political agenda's...

To disagree is an exercise in futility.
 
fossten said:
I guarantee you that Phil doesn't read the articles he posts. He wouldn't post half of them if he did read them, b/c they have so many errors, mistakes, and flaws in logic. Phil sees a headline, like you said, and grabs it.

Wrong again, zipperhead.
 
bigdog1279 said:
well i say they dont want us ther so just let them be we helped them and they still tell us to get out so let them die man

Where are you getting your information? The last time I checked, our boys over there said they are being very well received and treated by the Iraqi people. They also say that the Iraqis are grateful for our help.

You must be listening to the Fiberal Media's talking points.
 
More misinformation from the left wing press. Also known as the press.........
 
well some of my friends that are over there say that alot of ppl just ask them to get out so what i mean is bring ppl who want to come her and leave others there
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top