Shek

What does everyone else think of the troop level increase? For me, it's been long overdue!

Here's an oped from Ralph Peters:

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

highsea

Agree Major, long overdue.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Officer of Engineers

This sounds exactly like my army 5 years ago. And we're still a mess.

__________________
Chimo

bonehead

I'd like the inventory and troop numbers to go up as well, but it remains to be seen if the increased recruitment levels can be met to do so.

Stan187

More often than not, Ralph Peters gets it right on the money.

Shek

Stan,

I'll disagree with you there. Like VDH, mighty entertaining, but not so much for me on concurrence with what he wrote. However, I do think that this oped is spot on.

Bulgaroctonus

Members,

I enjoyed Mr. Peter's criticism of the defense industry appropriations, which I think is responsible for the waste of taxpayer money. Perhaps implicit in Peter's criticism was the idea the Rumsfeld's strategy of high-tech warfare, to the neglect of conventional strategies, was flawed.

I also believe the troop increase is overdue. However, I also feel it is too late. The time for this increase was after Saddam Hussein was originally ousted. I think that the insurgency is too mature and well-funded, one might say entrenched, to be countered.

Furthermore, this troop increase comes at a time when US domestic politics is ready for the war to end. That is does not mean that is should end, but that Bush is effectively out of time. These 20,000 troops would be effective if given support in the future. However, how efficacious is there presence if Washington pulls the plug in two years, when an anti-war Democrat will likely be elected?

With such low approval ratings for the president and the war specifically, I don't see how the war can go on. In addition, the war has never been cheap, and more troops will certainly increase the cost of Iraqi occupation.

What are the opinions of some of the military officials here on the points I've raised? I am interested in how the new brigades will be used, and specifically what problems more troops will solve.

Confed999

Everything can be beaten.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Bulgaroctonus

That kind of reply isn't helpful.

astralis

confed,

the insurgency has waned and become second chair to civil war/sectarian infighting. all of a sudden, it has become far less clear whom the enemy is.

shek,

regarding the OVERALL army troop increases (not the ones in iraq), in your estimation, is 92,000 enough? certainly it will depend upon the wars we need to fight, but is there a particular "comfort zone" you'd think the US military (especially the groundpounders) would do best with?

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Shek

I'm not familiar with discussions on the "best" level for the current force - I'd have to dig out some opeds by GEN McCaffrey and some others to see what some retired 4 stars have said (IIRC, he's stated that we need 600K in the active Army). However, the increase would effectively put us back at a 12 division force, which is 2 plus some change less than the Cold War force structure.

The question becomes how seriously are we contemplating a ground component to any Iran contingency plan, and what would the commitment in Iraq be at the time where such a contingency plan would have to be ready to be executed. I don't have the answers to either of those two questions, so sorry for not being much help on that aspect.

Confed999

Why not? You say that the insurgency is unstopable, I say everything can be beaten. My statement was as helpful as yours, though mine is more true as there is very little that cannot be beaten.

That sounds like it's beating itself through evolution then. Not much is invincible, and nothing made up of people is invincible.

Rifleman

Yes and no.

Troop level increase, yes! Additional brigades, no! I saw another article that said the Army was going to try to stand up six new brigades. Give as many existing brigades as possible a third manuever battalion before standing up any more HQs at any level.

__________________
"Aim small, miss small." - Benjamin Martin in The Patriot

Ray

Increase of troop levels will have marginal consequence. It is a mere confidence and morale builder!

What is important is correct deployment and employment!

And more important is a clear policy.

Already, the Iraqi govt is acting queer!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

astralis

confed,

the insurgency is effectively unstoppable with the level of resources we have put into the fight. unless we're willing to grant the force structure and the resources which CI theory gives as a general rule of thumb for crushing an insurgency, then unfortunately it will remain unbeaten. but that doesn't take away from your point that anything can be beaten.

not particularly "beating itself"- getting superseded would be closer to the mark. there was a study awhile back (i'll see if i can pull it up) that said that the insurgency was now financially self-sustaining, and not only that, insurgents are now known to attacking US troops merely to make propaganda films/videos (which in turn are getting fancier!). that would indicate that the insurgency is far from being defeated, if it has both the resources, capability, and will for doing even piddly operations.

but as serious as that is, its IMPORTANCE is fading. everyone knows that the best way to crush the insurgency now is to foster a working political solution, notably through a reconciliatory government. this government is now under the dominance of sectarian forces, which have created sectarian fighting so fierce as to reduce the relative impact of the sunni insurgency.

this not only stops our plan to crush the insurgency, it creates multiple problems of its own. after all, the civil war is not really aimed against us, and if the shia are determined enough to crush the sunnis, they probably can, because we've given them some of the tools necessary to do so. and if we're not smooth enough in persuading the shia not to do so, then we risk a shia insurgency, which would make US presence in iraq untenable, seeing as how we have enormous problems as it is trying to crush a minority sunni insurgency.

would that we had say, oh, five hundred thousand troops in country at the beginning. the knots are unraveling and we've not invested the resources needed to grab them back.