Bush Plans 30,000 Cut In Iraq Troops By May

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.rense.com/general44/popans.htm

Bush Plans 30,000 Cut In
Iraq Troops By May
By Marianne Brun-Rovet
The Financial Times - UK
11-6-3

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon last night called up more troops, including thousands of reserves, to prepare for service in Iraq but said it planned to cut overall forces by 30,000 by next May.

General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that US forces in Iraq would be reduced to 100,000 by May. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had previously shied away from giving precise figures for troop deployment in Iraq.

The new rotation reflects the contradictory pressures on the Bush administration as it seeks to bring American soldiers home while fighting an increasingly deadly insurgency in Iraq.

Speaking before the House armed services committee, Gen Pace did not give figures for troops being called up as of last night but said: "It does include a call-up of reserves. It does include the Navy and Air Force with their capabilities to participate."

The 2004 deployment will involve a new mix of troops, with Marines being sent back in for the first time since September.

Gen Pace's remarks came as the Congressional Budget Office provided new evidence of the strain Iraqi operations were placing on US forces.

The CBO said the US army would not be able to sustain force levels in Iraq beyond next spring unless it extended the tour of duty of its active units to more than a year.

The Pentagon's decision this summer to extend the tour of duty in Iraq to a full year had already provoked strong criticism.

Douglas HoltzEakin, director of the CBO, told the committee yesterday that "the active army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief".

The CBO said the army did not have enough active component forces "to simultaneously maintain the occupation at its current size, limit deployments to one year, and sustain all of its other commitments" - as the Pentagon had planned.

The analysis comes amid growing concerns about the US military's ability to sustain its high levels of troops abroad. More than 300,000 US forces have been called up since October 2001. There are still more than 190,000 troops, including 60,000 reservists, on active duty today.

Nearly 60 members of the committee, including Duncan Hunter, its chairman, have signed a letter to Mr Rumsfeld, asking him to bolster troop strength by two divisions.

? Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2003.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...lStory&c=Story
FT&cid=1066565671760&p=1012571727172

[BLUEHAWK]

Larry -
This is the kind of thing I have the most difficulty understanding, it seems illogical and we are not getting, or I have yet to see, a sufficient public explanation of the strategy.

Perhaps one of our colleagues here will shed light on this policy where none now exists.

[SuperScout]

Part of the deployment/redeployment matrix can best be explained by the evolutionary learning curve of the new best seller at the Pentagon, "How to Design and Conduct Counter-Terrorism Campaigns." Lest any take this as a snide comment, I find it heartening to know that the higher-ups are doing something that their counterparts of 30+ decades ago ignored, namely that we can't fight current wars as simply an extrapolation of World War II.4. The force structure in Iraq is being changed, since the mission has evolved from its original intent. Armor units are being rotated out, to be replaced by smaller footprint units. Guarding anything with an Abrams is not a good idea; M1A2's are designed to go fast and kill things, either through firepower or driving over them. The units being sent to Iraq will require a much smaller logistics tail, ergo, less support folks, are by design less of a target, ergo, less casualties, and are more designed to ferret out the bad guys, ergo, more results. On a personal note, pup #2 is scheduled for his opportunity to acquire his blood patch in late February; pup #1 already has his, 75th Rangers, from Panama.

[BLUEHAWK]

There, now I have a beginning grasp of it.

And, Godspeed pups #1 and #2 home safe.

What armor, if any, is likely to be kept back in theatre in the event of sudden change in enemy tactics?

[Boats]

What I loved to hear was that (we) are rebuilding their military and arming them. The same SOB's who tried to kill us!?

Better arms bettering training what the hell's goin on? I know we gotta do something but these so called enlistee's (Iraqi's) should be the fodder instead of our troops and this I agree.

But arming these guys so soon after we just kicked the snot out of them has me a little concerned!!!! Whose to say they aren't switch hitter's and turn on our own guys!!

I don't know the fix but arm these rascals after what our boy's/girls have been through doesn't feel good in the gut - know what I mean?