Buildup in Iraq Needed Into ’08, U.S. General Says

[Yoshie Furuhashi <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx>]

The Bush White House is surging more than many liberals anticipated. -- Yoshie

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08military.html>
March 8, 2007
Buildup in Iraq Needed Into '08, U.S. General Says
By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, March 7 — The day-to-day commander of American forces in
Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there
be maintained through February 2008, military officials said
Wednesday.

The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop
buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American
force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are
sent or more units are held over.

The confidential assessment by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T.
Odierno, reflects the military's new counterinsurgency doctrine, which
puts a premium on sustained efforts to try to win over a wary
population. It also stems from the complex logistics of deploying the
five additional combat brigades that are being sent to Iraq as part of
what the White House calls a "surge" of forces.

In fact, for now, it is really more of a trickle, since only two of
the five brigades are in Iraq. The American military is stretched so
thin that the last of the brigades is not expected to begin operations
until June.

In both the House and the Senate, most Democrats and many Republicans
have made clear their opposition even to the current troop increase,
and a decision by the White House to extend its duration would
probably intensify the political debate over the war.

Democratic lawmakers most strenuously opposed to the war are likely to
point to the increased stress on the armed forces in trying to
persuade party leaders to back a plan that would cut off financing for
any troop increase, a course that the Democratic leadership has so far
declined to embrace. In its effort to blunt the Congressional
opposition to the new strategy, the Bush administration has cited what
it calls early signs of progress, including a reduction in sectarian
killings in Baghdad. But military officials say it is far too soon to
draw any firm conclusions.

President Bush has often said that he will listen closely to advice
from commanders in the field in making decisions about strategy and
manpower in Iraq, but Pentagon officials emphasized Wednesday that no
decision to extend the "surge" had been made. Military officials said
General Odierno had provided his assessment to his superior, Gen.
David H. Petraeus, who took over as the top American commander in Iraq
this year. General Petraeus has yet to make a formal recommendation to
the Pentagon.

But the question of how long the buildup should last has already
become the focus of major concern for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

"We're looking, as we should, at each of the three possibilities: hold
what you have, come down, or plus up if you need to," Gen. Peter Pace,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon.
General Pace said that "early data points" showed that sectarian
attacks were slightly down since the Baghdad operation began. But he
said that the increase in car bombs suggested that Al Qaeda in
Mesopotamia was trying to incite further hostilities with this method.

When the Bush administration announced its troop buildup in January,
it said it was sending 21,500 troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province.
Since then, the Pentagon has said that as many as 7,000 additional
support troops would also be deployed, including some 2,200 additional
military police that General Petraeus had asked for to handle an
anticipated increase in detainees. These increases would bring the
total number of American troops in Iraq to around 160,000.

Any extension of the troop buildup would add to the strain on Army and
Marine forces that have already endured years of continuous
deployments. According to the current schedule, a Minnesota National
Guard brigade whose Iraq deployment was extended as part of the troop
reinforcement is to leave in August. A senior Pentagon official said
that the number of forces would be down to "presurge" levels in
December unless additional units were sent or kept longer.

Decisions need to be made soon, Army officials say, to identify
potential replacement units or extensions. To meet troop requirements,
the Army would need to look seriously at mobilizing additional
National Guard units later this year.

Another point of stress is the amount of time active duty units have
spent in the United States between deployments. It takes around a year
at home to prepare a combat brigade for Iraq. The Army generally has
been able to avoid sending units back to Iraq or Afghanistan without
at least a year at home.

But if Mr. Bush decides to extend the buildup, the first of the Army
brigades to return to Iraq with less than a year at home are likely to
do so later this year.

"As you move to less than a year, you're beginning to erode the
ability of the service chiefs to produce a ready force," said a senior
Pentagon official, who emphasized that the United States needed to be
prepared to deal with a range of threats.

Despite the strains, some military officials in Iraq say it is
unrealistic to expect a troop buildup of several months to create
enough of a breathing space for Iraqis to achieve political
reconciliation. "There is Washington time and Baghdad time," said a
senior Defense official in Iraq. "Some in Washington want it now, and
there is reality on the ground in Baghdad. They don't always match."

One concern is that Shiite militants and some insurgents will try to
outlast the American troops if the buildup is too short. A longer
buildup would give the American and Iraqi forces more time to disperse
economic assistance, provide better protection to Iraqi neighborhoods
and try to win over the Iraqi public.

"You have to protect the people long enough to get economic assistance
to them and change their attitude and change their behavior," said
Jack Keane, the retired vice chief of staff of the Army, who has
argued that the troop buildup should last 12 to 18 months. "You cannot
do that in weeks. It takes months to do that. The problem with the
short-term surge is that the enemy can wait you out."

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq also suggested that
the Iraqi Security Forces would not be able to assume the major
responsibility for securing Baghdad in the near future. An
unclassified version of the report noted that "the Iraqi Security
Forces, particularly the Iraqi police, will be hard pressed in the
next 12 to 18 months to execute significantly increased security
responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against
Shia militias with success."

Given the time needed to adjust training schedules and prepare units,
decisions may need to be made before there is clear evidence about
whether the new strategy is working. "If he defers some decisions he
potentially will foreclose deployment options downstream because
people won't begin to move," said a Pentagon official, referring to
Secretary Gates. "By deferring a decision he will in effect be making
a decision."

The additional American troops in the troop reinforcement plan are
intended to support a new strategy in which American forces are taking
up positions in Baghdad neighborhoods and not limiting themselves to
conducting patrols from large bases. Iraqi security forces in Baghdad
are also being expanded, including by the addition of Iraqi Army units
largely made up of Kurds.

The strategy calls for the establishment of 10 districts in Baghdad.
At least one American battalion is to be paired with Iraqi units in
each district. The hope is that this plan will afford more protection
to the Iraqi public and, along with political and economic moves by
the government, head off further bloodletting.


--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>