Iraq Troop Boost Erodes Readiness, General Says

[Rose Siding]

Outgoing Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said yesterday that the increase of 17,500 Army combat troops in Iraq represents only the "tip of the iceberg" and will potentially require thousands of additional support troops and trainers, as well as equipment -- further eroding the Army's readiness to respond to other world contingencies.
...
"We are having to go to some extraordinary measures to ensure we can respond," he said, but he added that even then he could not guarantee the combat units would receive all the translators, civil affairs soldiers and other support troops they request. "We are continuing today to get requests for forces that continue to stress us."

Schoomaker, in one of his last congressional testimonies as Army chief, also made it clear that he had raised concerns in advance about President Bush's plan to increase troops in Iraq because it would further deplete Army units at home.
...
The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, said in the same hearing that his chief concern is that Marines are not training for other types of conflicts beyond the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan -- such as conventional ground wars. "My largest concern has to do with training," he said. "We're not doing amphibious training, we're not doing mountain training," as well as some large-scale exercises, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501524_pf.html

[BeyondGeography]

1. Hidden agenda alert

<Even if the United States were to carry out a significant troop reduction in Iraq, Schoomaker said he would advise going ahead with the Army's plan for a permanent increase of 65,000 active-duty soldiers by 2013. "The Army's too small for the century we're in," he said.>

Especially when you click your heels, salute a loser like W., and go fight the wrong war with the wrong plan, Schoonie.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. sorry -- misspost

[Kagemusha]

5. Hey let's be fair. Where the Army's concerned, W. IS the Decider.

It's up to Congress to restrain Bush, not the uniformed military.

Anyway I think this is a lot of detail the public really needs to have over this.

- The report about the "surge" troops requiring lots of support troops that were not acknowledged (think of it as creative deploying as opposed to creative financial accounting) was largely correct, but the Army is desperately scrambling to FIND the support troops required.

- Pre-positioned stocks of (previously unused and undamaged) military equipment are being drawn down, robbing Paul to pay Peter (Pace).

These are not small things...

[BeyondGeography]

6. Understood, but they had a dolt at the top (Tommy Franks) and it killed them

Read "Fiasco," their leadership is all about tactics and nothing about strategy. They know how to get tasks done, but they can't see the forest for the trees. There was plenty of back-and-forth between Rumsfeld and Franks and Rummy ran roughshod over the guy. Too many of these Generals sided with Shinseki and did nothing to openly support higher troop levels until they were retired.

I'd also have more sympathy for them if they didn't go out and vote Republican no matter how badly they are fucked by the GOP. There's something completely dysfunctional about our military.

[Kagemusha]

9. Yeah, I understand your points as well.

These faults go back to not learning lessons from the Vietnam War and not wanting to, and repeating mistakes that are as old as the Army itself...

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Recommended.

[xchrom]

4. k&r

[Doondoo]

7. But hey, it's not like anybody gives a damn what the generals say

[neverforget]

8. Remember this gem from the RNC Convention in 2000 from Bush?

"If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report ..., 'Not ready for duty, sir.'"
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/04/gwbush.military/index.html


Now fast forward to today with 2 wars raging and another one in the works (from the OP's article):

--snip--
Virtually all of the U.S.-based Army combat brigades are rated as unready to deploy, Army officials say, and to meet the immediate needs in Iraq and Afghanistan they are finding it necessary to transfer personnel and gear to those units now first in line to deploy.
--snip--

Not only is the Army not ready to deploy, but they lack equipment too! Support the troops! (by deploying them countless times, not giving them new equipment and no time to train, and if you complain, you're un-American) Everything this Admin touches turns to crap. They have the Anti-Midas touch.

[Acadia Blue]

10. I wonder if Bush really wants to leave the USA vunerable just as

he has not closed the drug tunnels from Mexico. Is he so corrupt that he wants drugs coming into the USA and wants us vunerable to an attack?