<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/>