PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon report: stretched US army can't defeat Iraq Insurgency



Hurin_Rules
01-25-2006, 18:31
The report was commissioned by the Pentagon itself:


Army stretched to breaking point, report says

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Posted: 1523 GMT (2323 HKT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump -- missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 -- and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.

The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration officials have hotly contested that view.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.

"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.

Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. (U.S. troop levels)

For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers -- not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty -- the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.

Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on December 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.

Krepinevich is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit policy research institute.

He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the private Brookings Institution, said in a recent interview that "it's a judgment call" whether the risk of breaking the Army is great enough to warrant expanding its size.

"I say yes. But it's a judgment call, because so far the Army isn't broken," O'Hanlon said.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html

solypsist
01-25-2006, 18:45
i saw this a day ago but decided not to post it since some users might think i have an agenda. :balloon2:

Hurin_Rules
01-25-2006, 18:59
i saw this a day ago but decided not to post it since some users might think i have an agenda. :balloon2:

Yes, I thought so as well, and I can probably anticipate some of the criticisms I'll receive, so I will say the following:

1. The report was commissioned by the Pentagon itself.

2. Please speak to the message rather than the messenger.

3. I hate freedom because I'm Canadian.

Xiahou
01-25-2006, 19:00
The report was commissioned by the Pentagon itself:That doesnt make it infallible- lots of people have differing views about it. This is one view. I suspect that's why the Pentagon gets these reports- so that they can try to look at a given issue from as many angles as possible. This article itself lists many differing views on the matter.

Anyone else think this excerpt is funny?

Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.The guy says the Pentagon wouldn't say this publicly because he thinks it "gives too much encouragement to the enemy", yet he's out giving an interview to the AP on it. I guess he doesnt care about giving too much encouragement to the enemy? ~:confused:

The timing of articles like this just suggests to me laying ground work on the part of certain media outlets to be able to claim the troop reductions, which have been slated for months, are really an administration response to an "untenable" position in Iraq. Let's see if Im right. :wink:

Mikeus Caesar
01-25-2006, 19:01
This topic states the obvious more than George 'Most of our imports come from overseas...' Bush.

Redleg
01-25-2006, 20:08
I rather read the information coming from the soldiers themselves to determine if the military is close to a breaking point.

It gives a little more creditablity then a report that is only shared in an interview.

Its not a bad thing for the Pentagon to contract for an independent study, simply because it provides the necessary outside input to determine a direction or course of action to take. But I don't think the news article is protraying the complete story on this either.

Brenus
01-25-2006, 20:47
Yes, it should be interesting to have the soldiers’ point of view… Unfortunately, we won’t because soldiers have to keep their mouth shut when they are in under the flag, when they are out, they won’t be seen as traitor…
Anyway, it doesn’t need to be a genius to see that all western armies are overstretched. The all-high technology approach chosen by all the industrial nations ignored the fact that the anti-guerrilla war needs a lot of soldiers. It is true that a platoon nowadays has more fire power than ever but check points, patrols, hearts and minds operations need soldiers.
The number of theatres is also a problem: Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the best known, but also a lot of different peace keeping operations, plus the need of internal safety.

BDC
01-25-2006, 20:51
The logical step would be to increase the size of the army. Surely that wouldn't be an issue for the USA at least? Possibly initially, but not financially and given time.

Vladimir
01-25-2006, 22:30
I rather read the information coming from the soldiers themselves to determine if the military is close to a breaking point.


I heard a reporter that came back from Iraq say that there's two kinds of soldiers in the Army, those that are in Iraq and those who want to go. Sure some of them might BS but you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't think we're doing the right thing.

The "breaking point"? How the hell did we ever fight a war in the first place. Two or three deployments?!? I know they suck and I also know we (and presumably the UK) are tougher than that. The article I read stated TWICE that recruitment is down. Maybe it's because of the anti-war ranting that you see in the media. What I didn't read is that reenlistment is strong and that most of the soldiers believe in what they're doing. We're fighting a proxy war against not only terrorists but at LEAST Iran and Syria. Anything who says otherwise is simply misinformed.

Needless to say I'm very upset that this was released.

Edit-Soly I don't think anyone would hold it against you if you posted a legitimate, if objectionable, news story like this.

Watchman
01-25-2006, 22:43
That gung-ho attitude Vlad describes, and the recruitement slump mentioned, actually fit together pretty neatly in my logic. The gung-ho believers have already signed up, and that well has now more or less gone dry; where's the military going to pick up more people then ?

One problem with a volunteer army is that you may well sooner or later run out of volunteers...

I wouldn't personally count all that much on the soldiers' opinions though. On the average they only see a *very* small portion of the whole and militaries are notoriously in the habit of telling their grunts big stinking lies if need be to keep morale up. In other words, they get saturated with propaganda.

Did you know, when Germany collapsed at the end of WW1 it came as quite a surprise for many of the soldiers, because as far as they knew the country was still holding out pretty fine ? There's your view from the trenches. At least these days information control is rather more difficult, but then opinion manipulation has also gotten a whole lot more sophisticated.

solypsist
01-25-2006, 23:06
nm.

Reenk Roink
01-25-2006, 23:11
I hate freedom because I'm Canadian.

Most definitely going on my list of potential sigs :2thumbsup:.

Watchman
01-25-2006, 23:21
I think it loses impact (and that robust, wispy aroma...) if taken out of context. Sig the whole thing.

Proletariat
01-25-2006, 23:39
The 'hate freedom' joke is very Daily Show '03. Just wait until you get to see last night's episode, in a few years, non-Americans. It was a hoot.

solypsist
01-26-2006, 00:31
i like this.

pentagon says: not enough troops

rumsfeld says: yes there are or it's clintons fault (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11023499/)

i wonder why rumsfeld continues to push for reductions? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20051222-1311-rumsfeld.html)

Xiahou
01-26-2006, 00:42
i like this.

pentagon says: not enough troopsUmm, no it didnt.


i wonder why rumsfeld continues to push for reductions? (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20051222-1311-rumsfeld.html)How long has this been talked about again? But no, the only reason there could be troop reductions in Iraq is because we're losing right? Because, if things were really going according to plan we would never have troop level reductions in Iraq ever right? :dizzy2:

solypsist
01-26-2006, 00:52
Umm, no it didnt.

what part of, "cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency," is so hard to understand?
i mean, if one can sustain then there are plenty of freshies available, which, according to the report, there may not be.

Xiahou
01-26-2006, 00:56
what part of, "cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency," is so hard to understand?
i mean, if one can sustain then there are plenty of freshies available, which, according to the report, there are not.
What part of 'a report comissioned by the Pentagon' is hard to understand?


i mean, if one can sustain then there are plenty of freshies available, which, according to the report, there may not be.That's like saying if you're not broke, you must be rich. :laugh:

Proletariat
01-26-2006, 01:02
I'm sorry, but I don't see him quoted as saying that in the article posted. Did he say those words else where?

Listen to the man himself.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5172183
(Click listen and go to 1min 58sec)

solypsist
01-26-2006, 01:02
sophist semantics. as usual there is no dispute on the facts or report info but rather a focus on a distraction. typical.

why not attack the logic behind the idea that MAYBE being deployed for years at a time, not getting body armor, seeing your comrades die for no particularly good reason, and a having a massively corrupt support structure has a deleterious effect upon a standing army.




What part of 'a report comissioned by the Pentagon' is hard to understand?

That's like saying if you're not broke, you must be rich. :laugh:

Xiahou
01-26-2006, 01:12
sophist semantics. as usual there is no dispute on the facts or report info but rather a focus on a distraction. typical.Don't be so hard on yourself. :wink:

Someone submitting a report to an organization is a far cry from the organization making the statements contained in the report. I can't believe you don't understand that. That's also totally ignoring the fact that the head of the Pentagon would be Rumsfeld himself.

Gawain of Orkeny
01-26-2006, 02:41
Yes, it should be interesting to have the soldiers’ point of view… Unfortunately, we won’t because soldiers have to keep their mouth shut when they are in under the flag, when they are out, they won’t be seen as traitor…


Oh please. I protested the war in Nam while I was in the Marines. You just cant do it in uniform. My protest was that we were not being allowed to fight the war to our utmost. If you want to put young men in harms way you shouldnt hadicap them with silly rules that only one side goes by and ridiculous rules of engagement. I hear bad things from some of the soldiers coming back but most of them by far feel were winning and their morale is high. About two months ago I ran into a Marine who had gone to Iraq about 14 months ago. I hadnt seen him since just before he left. He said he didnt want to go. Well he cameback and said the place pretty much sucks. But that both sides far exagerate whats going on. He did believe however we were winning. Well about two hours ago I ran into him again. He told me he that theres nothing for him here and that he and his Marine buddies are all putting in for a second tour. These guys are all reservists. In their hearts they know their work is important and meaningful. Nothing here can offer that sense of accomplishment apparently.

GoreBag
01-26-2006, 07:41
I can't help but think that this is a prelude to some kind of mega-warfare legislature.

Samurai Waki
01-26-2006, 08:11
In times of peace you must prepare for war. Apparently mr. Clinton didn't get the memo. :laugh4:

Ja'chyra
01-26-2006, 10:17
I would argue that the troops are fine, most squaddies I know just put there head down and get on with the job at hand. If there was any sign of strain I would imagine it to be in the logistics side.

Oh, and I don't hate freedom per se, but I am partial to a tad of bondage now and then :balloon2:

Watchman
01-26-2006, 10:52
He told me he that theres nothing for him here and that he and his Marine buddies are all putting in for a second tour. These guys are all reservists. In their hearts they know their work is important and meaningful. Nothing here can offer that sense of accomplishment apparently....I wonder if I should tell Gaw what's the opinion held around here of people who make careers out of the military. Especially at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Franconicus
01-26-2006, 11:07
Its not a bad thing for the Pentagon to contract for an independent study, simply because it provides the necessary outside input to determine a direction or course of action to take. .
If the pentagon pays, the study is not independent. I made studies for our government before ~;)

But I don't think the news article is protraying the complete story on this either.
I agree. My opinion is that the pentagon just wants to get more money.

spmetla
01-26-2006, 11:13
I think for the most part the joes have no problem doing their job over there. Although year long deployments suck and are especially hard on married soldiers it's now just an accepted burden. I can definately see how some soldiers are pissed off, especially the IRR guys (Inactive Ready Reserve) because they guys that have finished the service they signed up for and now have to go back again shouldn't need to but have to because the lack of recruiting.

I don't feel that our army is designed for this type of war, it's a guerilla war against numerous enemies with no central leadership for us to take out or that's based in nations we can't tough (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia). We can kill all the foot soldiers of the insurgents we want but so long as they keep getting recruited from other nations (all the insurgents we brought in were either Syrian or Jordanian).

Although I personally don't support the reasons we went into the war I support what we're doing now and believe that we need to stay there for the sake of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis aren't friendly toward US soldiers and I can understand why but at the same time they aren't entirely hostile to us. In the countryside where I was located every Iraqi house had two Ak47s and 60 rounds per gun which says to me that if they really wanted out they could.
The Iraqi government needs us badly and the Army/Air Force will unfortunatley need to stay in the region until the Iraqis are able to carry out all the duties we carry out. This past year the Iraqis have finally gotten tanks again which will lessen the armor we need to supply, during the elections it was in our area at least all Iraqi Army guarding the polling sites and now they run a lot of checkpoints that were american run. The new Iraqi Army is corrupt sometimes unreliable and does have insurgents within but it is slowly getting stronger and although I personally don't envision it being entirely self sustained for a number of years we from what I see should be able to slowly reduce our troop presence there and hopefully the Iraqi army will be able to earn the trust and respect of the Iraqi civilians that it lacks right now.

I myself am a National Guardsman, I just finished my first tour there and have returned home. I'm Infantry, I did patrols, gates, towers, and interacted with Iraqi soldiers, security guards, and of course the the civilians in our patrol area. I am just an E4 Specialist though so I don't have the whole picture and this is just my personal opinion and is only based on what I was able to see which does vary a lot from unit to unit.

solypsist
01-26-2006, 15:01
onca again you attack a post without refuting the content re the army. i suppose the next move is to attack any typos i make in lieu of making a post of any real substance.



Don't be so hard on yourself. :wink:

Someone submitting a report to an organization is a far cry from the organization making the statements contained in the report. I can't believe you don't understand that. That's also totally ignoring the fact that the head of the Pentagon would be Rumsfeld himself.

Reverend Joe
01-26-2006, 19:07
onca again you attack a post without refuting the content re the army. i suppose the next move is to attack any typos i make in lieu of making a post of any real substance.
Try capitalising your I's next time, and spelling your words correctly, and then we'll pay attention. ~:rolleyes:

~:joker:

Oh, yeah- this ain't news. It has been obvious for a while that the Iraqi conflict is not going to work out.

Reenk Roink
01-26-2006, 19:10
Try capitalising your I's next time, and spelling your words correctly, and then we'll pay attention. ~:rolleyes:

~:joker:

Oh, yeah- this ain't news. It has been obvious for a while that the Iraqi conflict is not going to work out.

I think I hear khelvan calling...

Vladimir
01-26-2006, 19:42
Not going to "work out"?

Xiahou
01-27-2006, 02:15
onca again you attack a post without refuting the content re the army. i suppose the next move is to attack any typos i make in lieu of making a post of any real substance.
What 'content re the army'? You havent shown any- you're talking nonsense.

Are you asking me to respond the the report? It's wrong. I think it may be fair to say the army is stretched between it's worldwide commitments and our presence in Iraq. But is it going to "break" (whatever the hell that means)? Of course not. We have enough troops for current needs and the numbers will only decrease as time goes on and more Iraqi units are fielded.

Watchman
01-27-2006, 02:20
Actually, speaking of the Iraq conflict "working out", I recently read a bit of what might be considered "good news" - apparently the foreign jihadists and the native guerillas are increasingly starting to *not* get along. Disputes over methods and suchlike apparently, and there have already been minor but escalating tit-for-tat skirmishes in some parts.

Which is good news for the Coalition as the local militants are probably by far the ones best equipped to boot the jihadists out if it comes down to that, but then again there'll be nobody else than the *other* armed foreigners for them to fight afterwards...

And restless natives on a serious guerilla warpath aren't really defeatable in the modern world.

spmetla
01-27-2006, 22:28
Generally that' because the foreign inurgents don't care about collateral damage and killing iraqis in order to kill US soldiers while the local guerillas are a bit more careful in their attacks.