How bad are things for the Bush Administration in Iraq? Consider that even Henry Kissinger, a classic überhawk, if ever there was one, has said enough. Not to worry though; I’m sure Laura Bush and the boys at the American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, National Review, Commentary magazine, Project for a New American Century – well, maybe not Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman—still stand by their men, George and Dick..

But if so, they are one of the hardy few who do. Let’s face facts; even before the November 7 election U.S. Iraq policy was a fast sinking ship. Policymakers are both desperate for a solution and clueless. The regaining of power by the Democratic Party doesn’t change that.

So naturally, against all hope and logic, not to mention, intelligent thinking, the elites are hoping that the forthcoming report from the Baker-Hamilton commission, i.e. the Iraq Study Group, will pull a rabbit out of their magic hat so both parties can leave Iraq behind them and go on to the things that really matter, like the 2008 presidential election.

The Pentagon also has its own group studying U.S. options in Iraq. According to the Washington Post that group has outlined three options; “Go Big” for sending a lot more troops, “Go Home” for pulling out quickly, or “Go Long” for the current plan of stepped up training for Iraqi troops along with perhaps with a short boost in U.S. troop levels.  Go Long temporarily increase the U.S. force by 20,000 to 30,000 troops to try to quell the violence.  Then gradually reduce the total force from 140,000 troops now to 60,000 who could remain in Iraq for five to 10 years.

Even now that first, Go Big” option still has its adherents. Speaking on Fox News Sen. John McCain, presumed Republican frontrunner in 2008, said, “No, we are not playing in Iraq.  That’s why we have to have more troops there and we have to do it quickly.”

There is a remarkable sense of unreality at work here. Both the Go Big and Go Long options call for significant troop increases.  Earth to Pentagon; where are you going to get the troops from? Can you say overextended?

As of January 2006, nearly all of the available combat units in the U.S. Army, Army National Guard, and Marine Corps have been used in current operations.  Every available combat brigade from the active duty Army has already been to Afghanistan or Iraq at least once for a 12 month tour. Many are now in their second or third tours of duty.  Approximately 95% the Army National Guard’s combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized since 9/11.  Short of full mobilization or a new Presidential declaration of national emergency, there is little available combat capacity remaining in the Army National Guard.  All active duty Marine Corps units are being used on a “tight” rotation schedule – seven months deployed, less than a year home to reset, and then another seven months deployed – and all of its Reserve combat units have been mobilized.

A September 13 congressional news release from Reps. Murtha and Obey noted that the likelihood that many Army combat and support units scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2007 will have less than the required one year period for rest and re-training.  This is one of the key indicators that lead many Army officials to conclude that current deployment rates cannot be sustained without breaking the force.

Senior Army and Marine Corps officers have begun warning that without a troop reduction in Iraq, the present schedule of combat tours would be difficult to sustain without an increase in the number of forces. The concerns had reached such a level that top Army leaders broached the issue of changing deployment rules to allow for more frequent call-ups of National Guard and Reserve units to relieve pressure on the active duty Army. But because the Army relied heavily on the Guard and Reserve early in the war, many units have hit legal deployment limits, which allow for two years overseas out of every five. Without a change in those rules to allow more frequent Guard deployments, the Army would be forced to consider a push for an expansion of its active duty force, which now stands at 504,000.

No related posts.