airborneskins Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 For all of you that thought the troops were coming home soon... http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/20/us.troops.ap/index.html Troop level in Iraq would remain the same thru 2009 Sunday, August 21, 2005; Posted: 7:20 a.m. EDT (11:20 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Army is making plans to keep 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 troop rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers. Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility, he said, is to provide them, trained and equipped. About 138,000 U.S. troops, including about 25,000 Marines, are 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 during the coming year for 12-month tours of duty. Schoomaker's comments come amid indications from officials of President George W. Bush's administration and from commanders in Iraq that the size of the U.S. force could 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. (Full story) Schoomaker, who spoke aboard an Army jet on the trip back to Washington from Kansas City, Missouri, made no predictions about the pace of political progress in Iraq. But he said he was confident the Army could continue to provide the current number of forces to fight the insurgency for many more years. He was in Kansas City on Friday for a dinner held 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 deployed to meet the commanders' needs, Schoomaker said in the interview. Revised troop rotations The Army has changed the way it rotates troops. 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, the National Guard 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Only makes sense to plan ahead,especialy since we will likely have a presense over there for a decade or two...Of course there should be a drawdown of numbers as the situation improves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 That would be Worst case Scenario.. Kinda like when I was in Korea and the gulf war kicked off.. My 1 year Hardship tour was extended to 4 years.... But it never happened.. Odds are they will draw down near xmas... they like to do that... Then a drop in direct relation to the amount of Divisions trained so they can show an equal increase/decrease on a chart to the people... Leaving about 40k people in Iraq like Germany/Korea etc.. It will become the next hardship tour... and like some will say: Cause our Foreign policy to give another reason for Hamas/Alqaeda to gain members . See Israel pullout to prove that false... :shhh: *Unless the Gov't tell us to leave and then there will just be a 1500 member embassy* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 'bout time somebody started planning ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted August 21, 2005 Author Share Posted August 21, 2005 Odds are they will draw down near xmas... they like to do that... Funny, all of my deployments have just happened to be right before Christmas. The military has changed Thiebear. But I see what you are saying about planning ahead. After 9/11 I was stop lossed in Korea, but I only had to stay an extra month. Too bad as soon as I got back to the States, I was off to Afghanistan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 Above and beyond the politics surrounding the Iraqi conflict, I have a question for those in the military: What would be considered an "acceptable," if you will, length and duration of service in Iraq, or an acceptable number of tours? The biggest concern I would have is simply the manpower needed for four more years. Are we going to have a great deal of burnout from having to serve multiple tours? Will we have enough new recruits to keep up with the pace for replacements needed in the theater? What about the National Guard units - will this have an adversely long-term negative consequences? What about the current stop loss that is happening with service members: is this a practice that should be continued? Or do we really have the manpower we need for another two-to four years, and such questions aren't really significant? I am honestly concerned about the long-term affects this conflict could have on our military, comparable to what happened to the Israeli military in Lebanon. I am also concerned for my friends in uniform, and for folks such as yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted August 21, 2005 Share Posted August 21, 2005 This only makes sense because soon we will be heading to Iran. I feel sorry for most Americans, because they dont know what the term "You have the right to bear arms" really mean. *Hint* The Draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.