Losing an Army (also, using up equipment at four times the rate)

[ProSense]

July 22, 2006

Losing an Army

Earlier this week I linked to a commentary from William S. Lind in which he warned that war with Iran could result in the loss of the 140,000 man army America currently has bogged down in Iraq. This may have seemed far-fetched, given the enormous military disparity between the two sides. But Col. Pat Lang, a former intelligence officer, explains how and why it could happen:

American troops all over central and northern Iraq are supplied with fuel, food, and ammunition by truck convoy from a supply base hundreds of miles away in Kuwait. All but a small amount of our soldiers' supplies come into the country over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated south of Iraq . . .

Southern Iraq is thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian special operations forces working with Shiite militias, such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades. Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long.

(Christian Science Monitor, via No Quarter)

Snip..

In other words, in the event of a real world war -- as opposed to the kind that pundits pontificate about on Fox News -- Centcom would either have to "pacify" the transportation routes through southern Iraq quickly and ruthlessly (which might not be possible, given the troops available and the possibility some Iraqi units might turn on their putative allies) or try to evacuate some or most U.S. forces from Iraq, either by air or ground.

We're talking, on other words, about a potential debacle -- the worst U.S. military defeat since Pearl Harbor. Not because the Iranians are brilliant strategists or tough fighters (although they may be; we really don't know) but because the Iraq occupation has left the U.S. Army dangerously overextended, given its massive supply requirements.
more...

http://billmon.org/archives/002553.html

Army extends cost-cutting, despite emergency funding bill

By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Saturday, July 22, 2006

Snip...

The Army has more than 100,000 soldiers deployed to Iraq, plus responsibility for logistic support for itself and its sister services. It also equips, trains and supports the Iraqi security forces.

Snip...

Belt-tightening measures that will stay in place include:

Limiting supply purchases to critical wartime needs only

Cancellation and/or postponement of all non-mission-essential travel

Stopping shipment of goods, unless necessary to support deployed units or those preparing to deploy

A hiring freeze on new civilians, except for new interns and lateral moves/promotions of current employees

Releasing temporary employees (who will not be hired back even with receipt of supplemental funding)

A freeze on all new contract awards and all new task orders on existing contracts

Restrictions on the use of government credit cards

Snip...

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said July 14 that in 2004 it cost $4 billion to repair or replace war equipment, but now it has reached $12 billion to $13 billion. “And in my view, we will continue to see this escalate,” he told a Defense Forum Foundation roundtable on the Army’s role on the war on terror in Washington. The Army is using up equipment at four times the rate for which it was designed, he added.

Snip...

The Army chief said there is too little money available to keep up with equipment repairs. He said the Army’s five major repair depots are operating at only 50 percent of capacity, resulting in a backlog of 1,000 Humvees awaiting attention at the Red River Army Depot in Texas and 500 tanks at a depot in Alabama. The Army’s 2006 budget is $98.2 billion, and the 2007 budget request not yet approved by Congress seeks $111 billion for the Army.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=38797

[sweetheart]

1. Last time it ended in stalingrad.

The imperialists arrived in to central asia easily enough, just
failed to leave in time. Its how they "leave" asia that is the problem.
It seems ejected like a watermelon seed is typical.

An interesting article in the guardian, pointed out how all the
british colonies, america included, are all having problems. All the
"colonies" supressed and deposed the landrights of their invaded peoples,
some more artfully than others, some less brutally. The history book
is not yet written, and the supremecy of the british colonial model is
only written in the future if it can succeed in uplifting the world's
population to wealth without destroying the planet.

As stands, the model is part of the problem, and colony after colony, zimbabwe,
egypt, india, israel, and the US, all have prison-state war systems of evil supression of
minorities and poor. Begs reflection on the white man's burden, the englishman's burden,
or whatever metaphor you want to call it, but this original sin of our society, and
where it will take uz if we do not become humble.

[Aviation Pro]

2. Here's a Bush solution to this...

"The Army chief said there is too little money available to keep up with equipment repairs. He said the Army’s five major repair depots are operating at only 50 percent of capacity, resulting in a backlog of 1,000 Humvees awaiting attention at the Red River Army Depot in Texas and 500 tanks at a depot in Alabama. The Army’s 2006 budget is $98.2 billion, and the 2007 budget request not yet approved by Congress seeks $111 billion for the Army."

Hire illegal aliens at the depots. That'll solve the manpower problem, by crackey.

[cliss]

3. This is unbelievable, and I'll tell you why.

It's clear: the US military is capable of doing 'Shock & Awe' type bombing activities, or maintaining long term military bases around the world (although even that's questionable) but we are NOT I repeat NOT able to wage a long-term war.

In particular, in several countries. We've got Iraq and Afghanistan, and our ambitious War Mongers are lusting after Iran, as well.

I've always said that the ONE AND ONLY thing that will stop them is when we run out of funds. These people have lots of plans for us, they're just getting started. But they will be stopped when we run out of funds. And it's obvious -- -- that day has come.

--- - -- - -

What is the implication in all this? You better believe leaders in other countries are reading this report, as well. Because of Cheney's insane, misguided wars they have weakened the U.S. This is causing huge instability in the world. Other countries see the established world order as falling apart.

We are starting to see that now......

[alfredo]

4. Looking at a map can tell you that Iran would have us

by the short hairs. They could easily cut off our supply lines in the Gulf and on the ground. Remember, they are not adverse to using human waves. Because we have been experiencing ammo supply problems this tactic could be a real possibility.

If we do go to war with Iran, I could almost put money on bush using nuclear weapons on Iran.

[Rex]

5. As former MI, I have to agree with him.

The tell-tale signs are all over the place. Bases can't pay their utilities, no command and control in Iraq, soldiers without adequate protection, plus a few other things. Mix that all in with a few years and you end up with a demoralized and maybe disbanding army. Not good.

[ProSense]

6. Halliburton: ISSUE: Company losing big Army contract.

Halliburton

South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
Posted July 20 2006

ISSUE: Company losing big Army contract.

Snip...

After all, when the vice president of the United States pushes hard for a war and then the contract for logistics is given to the company he used to head, it raises a heap of suspicions, both at home and abroad. In short, it looks like war profiteering.

It looks even worse when audits reveal more than $1 billion in questionable billing by Halliburton, which subcontracts the logistical work to subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. According to a report by Griff Witte of The Washington Post, published in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, whistleblowers said the company charged exorbitant prices, double-billed on meals and "allowed troops to bathe in contaminated water."

You would think that Vice President Dick Cheney, a chief adviser for the ill-advised war in Iraq, would not want American soldiers bathing in contaminated water. You'd think he might say something to his former company, with which he still has considerable influence. You'd think he'd summon company officials to his office for some tough talk about their billing practices.

Snip...

In any case, it's good the Army is terminating its multibillion-dollar contract with Halliburton, a deal that never should have been signed. But the firm will be allowed to bid on a new contract to be shared with two other companies. Its bid should be rejected.

Unfortunately, the decision to terminate comes far too late. Halliburton has milked Iraq almost dry and will now cry all the way to the bank.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorial/sfl-edittdhalliburtonjul20,0,1732109.story?coll=sfl-yourmoney&track=mostemailedlink