The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > Not Exactly SVX

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-18-2006, 06:25 AM
Bipa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
US Military Perspective

I've been reading US Military newpapers and online publications recently for a more balanced view. Here's an article out of the "Stars and Stripes" that caught my eye. I've put in bold the stuff that caught my interest, otherwise the article is untouched and unedited.

Mar 18, 5:49 AM EST

U.S. wants fewer troops in line of fire

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon wants to pull increasing numbers of American troops out of the line of fire in Iraq, but three years after the invasion this latest evolution in the U.S. military's mission will depend largely on whether Iraqi security forces can handle it.

Whether there will be the first sustained decline in American casualties since the insurgency took hold in late summer 2003 depends on how quickly and fully U.S. troops' roles are changed. So far more than 2,300 American troops have died in the campaign, with more than 17,000 wounded.

Though the stated goal of U.S. officials is to make a substantial withdrawal of troops this year, it is not yet clear that the Iraqis will prove ready - politically or militarily - to take on the added responsibility. A Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine set off sectarian violence that has slowed the process of forming a permanent government in Baghdad, more than three months after December's elections.

This week the outlook was altered by two developments. The Pentagon announced it was sending 700 more U.S. troops into Iraq from Kuwait, and it launched a large assault on suspected insurgent territory near Samarra, north of Baghdad.

As U.S. commanders place more and more Iraqi territory under the control of local forces, Americans have begun moving to more of a back-seat role - putting the Iraqi army and police in charge. This is happening even with the expectation that at some point the Iraqis will careen off their path and need more U.S. help.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld alluded to this in a Feb. 17 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, when he said the Pentagon must keep pushing the Iraqis to stand on their own:

"We're going to have to pull out of some pieces of real estate and turn over things to Iraqis. And they're going to drop the ball; I mean, let's face it. And we're going to have to step in, go back in and fix it, and then turn it back over again. And it's going to be three steps forward and one step back."


Cordesman said in an interview that the U.S. military and the Bush administration vastly underestimated the difficulty they would face in stabilizing a conquered Iraq.

"We find ourselves having been able to prevent the insurgency from rising, but not from creating a growing risk of civil war," he said. "We have not by any means lost, but we can't say that we are - at least yet - winning."

Iraqi forces are being given full control of more territory each month, although U.S. soldiers are still operating with them as advisers, trainers and monitors. When an Iraqi army brigade assumed control of areas in central and southern Baghdad from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division on Feb. 21, Col. Michael Beech said 60 percent of the capital was in Iraqi hands.

In a report to Congress on Feb. 24, the Pentagon said it will be possible to consider further U.S. troop reductions beyond the 7,000-troop cut announced by Rumsfeld in December. But it was cautious, noting that while U.S. troops may become less visible, their numbers might have to be increased at some point.

The last time the Pentagon began reducing the U.S. presence, in early 2004, the insurgency suddenly intensified, with a rash of U.S. troop deaths and a near complete breakdown of civil order in the city of Fallujah.

From a low point in January 2004 of just under 110,000, the U.S. troop total grew to about 142,000 four months later and has hovered in the range of 135,000 to 160,000 ever since. That has put an enormous strain on the military, particularly the Army and Marine Corps as the primary U.S. ground forces in Iraq.

The Pentagon says it is making progress in training Iraqi security forces, but officers directly involved acknowledge the task is complicated by language and other cultural gaps between the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Few Iraqis have more than a vague notion of what it means to have a professional military.

"They're worried about survival," said Maj. Rodrigo E. Mateo, who led a team of U.S. military advisers in Iraq last year. That can make it hard for the Americans to understand the motives of Iraqi army recruits and how they will react to military discipline, he said.

Mateo and other former Army trainers said in recent interviews that the quality of Iraqi recruits has varied widely.

"A lot of people joined (the Iraqi military) because that's the best opportunity they have to feed their families and to earn a living," said Lt. Col. Reginald E. Allen, a trainer in Iraq in 2004.

"If they get in that situation and the training is too rough for them or not does not adhere to their normal cultural standards where they get a certain amount of time off ... then they're going to jump ship," Allen said.

The dispatching of extra troops to Iraq pointed up the problem of relying too much on Iraqi security forces during periods of heightened tension. But the helicopter-led assault near Samarra, which involved large numbers of Iraqi troops, showed that Iraqi forces are taking on bigger responsibilities, top U.S. officers said.

Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Baghdad, said Friday that the goal is to turn control of 75 percent of the country's territory over to Iraqi forces by the end of summer. That did not necessarily mean the Iraqis would be given areas where the insurgency is strongest, but it did underscore the goal of enlarging their role.

Pentagon officials never expected that the invasion of Iraq, capped by a swift toppling of Saddam Hussein, would be followed by three years of deadly combat with a shadowy and resilient insurgency. Nor did they think it would take so long to get a capable Iraqi army trained and equipped.

"We did not plan three years ago to create more than token Iraqi forces," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Now we're at 230,000 roughly, and counting. Our whole strategy is dependent on the success of the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-18-2006, 06:31 AM
Bipa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
In the previous story was written how the reduction of US troops in Iraq will be dependent of how well the Iraqis will be able to do. The prospect doesn't look all that good for the near future. Here's another article from Stars and Stripes.

Feb 24, 10:06 PM EST

Pentagon cites Iraqi army gains, losses

By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of Iraqi army battalions judged by their American trainers to be capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help has slipped from one to none since September, Pentagon officials said Friday.

But the number of Iraqi battalions capable of leading the battle, with U.S. troops in a support role, has grown by nearly 50 percent. And the number of battalions actually engaged in combat has increased by 11 percent.

The U.S. military says its short-term goal is to train more Iraqi units to a level where they can lead the fight, since that allows American troops to focus on other tasks besides combat and could reduce U.S. casualties.

However, in the longer run, the Iraqi military will have to reach a level of full independence so it can take over the battle against the insurgency and allow the Bush administration to withdraw American troops from the country eventually.

The Pentagon report claimed important successes against the insurgency and said the term "insurgency" is not necessarily appropriate any more because the synergy that once existed among various rebel elements "is breaking apart."

The report asserted that the insurgents have alienated most ordinary Iraqis.

"Terrorist attacks have failed to create and spread sectarian conflict," it said.

The report provided a detailed description of progress in training the full range of Iraqi security forces, but it did not mention how many army battalions are rated "Level 1" - those judged to be fully independent.

It focused on those at "Level 2," which describes battalions capable of taking the lead in combat against the insurgents, with some U.S. help. Units at "Level 3" are fighting alongside U.S. forces but are not ready to take the lead in planning and execution of missions.

In a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart disclosed that the number of battalions at Level 1 had dropped from one to zero, while the number at Level 2 had grown from 36 last September to 53 now. The number at Level 3 fell from 52 to 45, in part because some were upgraded to Level 2.

Thus the total number actually engaged in combat has increased from 88 last September to 98 now.

Renuart said he did not know precisely why the one battalion previously rated Level 1 had been downgraded, but he cited the general inadequacy of the Iraqis' ability to provide their own transport and other logistical support.

"What you will start to see, I think, as we get in past the April or May timeframe is an increasing number of Iraqi battalions" with enough of a support system to allow them to be upgraded to Level 1, Renuart said.

The total number of Iraqi security forces is now about 232,000, according to Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, who joined Renuart in briefing reporters after the pair reviewed the Iraq report with congressional staffers.

When Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last September that the number of Iraqi battalions capable of fighting independently of U.S. troops had dropped from three to one, the news triggered an uproar among Democrats arguing for an early exit from Iraq.

The size of an Iraqi battalion varies according to its type but it usually numbers several hundred.

In a new report to Congress assessing the Iraq situation, the Pentagon also asserted Friday that the insurgency is losing strength, becoming less effective in its attacks, and failing to undermine the development of an Iraqi democracy.

The report was written last week, before the bombing of a Shiite shrine and a wave of deadly reprisal attacks. It is the third in a series of reports that Congress requires from the Pentagon every three months.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-18-2006, 06:23 PM
Bipa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Letters to the Editor for Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Stars and Stripes

European and Mideast editions

Gonzales not right fit for GIs

As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.

During his tenure as White House counsel, Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Today, it is clear that these operations have:

Fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
Undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
Added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.
Before Gonzales assumes the position of attorney general, it is critical to understand whether he intends to adhere to the positions he adopted as White House counsel or chart a revised course more consistent with fulfilling our nation’s complex security interests — and maintaining a military that operates within the rule of law.

Among his past actions that concern us most, Gonzales wrote to the president on Jan. 25, 2002, advising him that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict then under way in Afghanistan. The reasoning Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk and would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions.”

Perhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. These changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq] and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops.

The full extent of Gonzales’ role in endorsing or implementing the interrogation practices the world has now seen remains unclear. A series of memos prepared at his direction in 2002 recommended official authorization of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, feigned suffocation and sleep deprivation.

The United States’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions — the laws of war — flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided.

We urge senators to take into account the effects of Gonzales’ advice on U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice.

Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms (retired)
Carlsbad, Calif.

The letter also was signed by: Army Brig. Gen. James Cullen (retired), Army Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (retired), Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn (retired), Navy Rear Adm. Don Guter (retired), Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar (retired), Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy (retired), Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak (retired), Army Maj. Gen. Melvyn Montano (retired), Army Gen. John Shalikashvili (retired).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122