[It seems that if we increase troop levels, we won't be able to sustain it for more than 6-12 months at the most. During that time, the troops will be much more worn down and angry, and their equipment will be faultier and more frustrating. And perhaps most importantly, the fall-off after that period will be precipitous -- a higher troop level cannot be sustained at all. So if next April flares up like this April, it looks as if we might well have no resources to meet it. Without a draft or other very major changes, it would seem the US has a quite limited time before even this level of resistance overwhelms our manpower resources.]
Financial Times; Apr 24, 2004 Increase in troops for Iraq stretches US army
By Peter Spiegel
The Pentagon's decision to increase US troop numbers in Iraq has had a ripple effect in the US army, which is likely to force units to return to Iraq just months after being relieved from combat duty, according to Pentagon officials and an analysis of deployments.
Indeed, the unexpected spate of violence in recent weeks and the decision by Spain to withdraw troops may force the military to break its own guidelines on deployments -- which order at least a year to recuperate before units return to combat zones -- if the new levels are to be maintained past June.
"Some of them would have to go back to Iraq, breaking some of our administrative guidelines for use of these forces," General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, acknowledged this week. "In other words, they might not have all the time back at their home station that we had hoped they would have."
Military officials said the decision whether to extend the higher troop levels -- now at 135,000, up from a planned 115,000 -- depended largely on how the current stand-off in battle-torn Falluja was resolved. But the decision has been complicated by the Spanish departure, and the belief that forces from some coalition members cannot handle current levels of combat.
"Many [coalition partners] are there under rules of engagement that preclude them from operating effectively when it may matter most," said Richard Perle, a defence analyst with close ties to the Pentagon.
If the higher levels are to be maintained, the Pentagon must quickly replace 20,000 troops who were due to return home earlier this month but had their rotations extended through June.
Such troops will be hard to find. All but one of the army's 10 active divisions are either now deployed overseas or just returning from combat duties in Iraq or Afghanistan. That one rested unit -- the Georgia-based 3rd Infantry Division -- was the lead invasion force in last year's Iraq war. The division returned to the US last August.
Gen Myers would not say whether the 3rd division had been put on alert, but last month the unit was informed it would be returning to Iraq. "It's kind of simple math right now: Who's left?" an army spokesman said. "There's no other division that is not moving right now or fully engaged."
Military analysts warn that the constant, quickening rotation of army forces risks degrading the army's capabilities over the long term, compressing the time soldiers have for training and for repairing weapons. It has led to increased calls for expanding the size of the army, a push that has been resisted by Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, who has argued such growth would be unnecessarily costly.
Instead, Mr Rumsfeld has given Gen Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff, the authority temporarily to increase the size of the army by 30,000 troops, and urged him to create 10-15 new brigades by moving uniformed military out of administrative jobs and into more combat-related duties. There are 300,000 military personnel performing civilian duties, Mr Rumsfeld has estimated.
"There's no question it would be nice right now to have a larger army," Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, said this week. "The problem is, if we decided now or a year ago to have a larger army, these people don't just walk in. It's not like hiring for a cheque-writing organisation."
The problem could become even more acute if Gen John Abizaid, commander of forces in the Gulf, decides he needs more than the 135,000 troops currently deployed, a contingency for which the Pentagon acknowledges it is already planning. Although additional US Marines could be sent, another increase could force now-departing army units to turn around.
Senator John McCain, a Republican and a leading voice on military affairs, went so far as to suggest this week that brigades permanently deployed in South Korea be tapped for Iraq duty to help with overstretch problems. In addition, US authorities in Baghdad are contemplating using private security companies for even more military- related duties, such as escorting supply convoys.
"We must recognise that if we do [increase troop levels again], we will not be able to sustain that presence for very long -- six to 12 months at most -- and doing so will likely diminish our ability to sustain even a smaller presence once our initial surge is over," said Kenneth Pollack, a former Iraq analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency.
Even if Gen Abizaid does not request additional troops, however, some experts argue that army overstretch will have had as much impact on such decisionmaking as Iraq's security needs. Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, says: "The limits on the size of our army are constraining the debate about how many forces to add in Iraq."