US alerting more troops for Iraq duty-general

[Judi Lynn]

US alerting more troops for Iraq duty-general



WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — The U.S. military on Wednesday night will begin ordering thousands of additional active duty and part-time National Guard and Reserve troops to prepare for service in Iraq early next year, a senior Pentagon general told Congress.

But Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stressed that the troops would be part of a 2004 Iraq rotation plan and that the 132,000 U.S. troops now there could actually decrease to just over 100,000 in May.

''We will be talking to Congress this afternoon and issuing orders tonight and having press briefings tomorrow on the next rotation of forces,'' Pace said at a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. ''It does include a call-up of reserves, it does include use of land forces, it does include the Navy and Air Force with their capabilities to participate,'' he said. (snip/...)

http://famulus.msnbc.com/FamulusIntl/reuters11-05-114104.asp?reg=MIDEAST

[soleft]

1. Is this it Irate Citizen?

My thoughts are with you and Mrs. IC

[Say_What]

2. These articles are everywhere today.

Can't do it during election year though, and a lot could happen in the next year.

<clips>

A Draft in the Forecast?

With winter is approaching, it appears the White House may start feeling a bit drafty. It's not a matter of poor insulation, but rather the result of mounting evidence that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war plan in Iraq is not going well, and there may well need to be more U.S. troops sent to Iraq.

The shoot-down of a Chinook helicopter earlier this week, causing the death of 15 soldiers and the wounding of another 21, is a good example of the problem. It turns out this military disaster was, in large part, the direct result of a shortage of troops on the ground. With the military's 134,000 troops in Iraq spread so thin, there was nobody available to secure the area around the helicopter landing zone in what is acknowledged to be a high-risk area. Because helicopters are particularly vulnerable to attack during their slow landings and ascents, it is standard procedure to secure the perimeter of landing areas, but in this instance, the military had to abandon standard practice and take a chance. There were no soldiers available to protect the area.

A New York Times column following the shoulder-fired missile attack notes, correctly, that because of the high numbers of personnel required for support, maintenance and high-tech "back-office" functions in Rumsfeld's "lean and mean" military, actually only some 56,000 of the 134,000 U.S. troops in country are available to carry guns. Since these guys need to eat and sleep, at best there are then only 28,000 U.S. troops available to patrol all of Iraq, a hostile country the size of California, at any given time.

There were hopes at the White House and in the Pentagon that Turkey would ride to the rescue with an influx of armed troops, but, like India and Pakistan before it, Turkey has thought better of this incredibly bad idea, and now says it will not participate in the U.S. war and occupation. That announcement assures that the U.S. will at a minimum have to call up more reservists and National Guard soldiers for Iraq duty during this election year.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11052003.html

[Judi Lynn]

6. Great article

It should come as no surprise then, even as the president and his advisers continue to claim that everything is going well and according to plan, that saner heads at the Pentagon are taking steps to prepare for return to the draft.

That's the first time I've seen it written in such abrupt terms, after knowing people have suspected it for months.

[pnorman]

3. This looks like Compulsive Obsessive Behaviour by Bush.

He's STILL trying to demonstrate to us all that: YES, National Guard duty IS hazardous! If all else fails, he may have to feed his beloved Texas Air National Guard to the Beast.

[hang a left]

4. And this on the eve of the "more freedom in the ME" speech

by ass whistler.

[ConcernedCanuk]

5. "132,000 U.S. troops now there could actually decrease to just over 100,00

"132,000 U.S. troops now there could actually decrease to just over 100,000

. . okay, is that as in "relieved of duty", or in "transfer tubes" ?

. . The Amerikkkan WH gots never ceases to amze and disgust me, but sadly, there are no surprises left when it comes to their unlimited depth of evil.

Just My Humble Canadian Opinion

[aquart]

7. They're lying about the decrease.

They can't do it.

They will be desperate for more bodies next year.

Al queda, if it's very very smart, will leave the US mainland alone and concentrate on Iraq. If Americans feel safe at home, the attrition in Iraq will look worse and worse and worse.

To decrease troop strength, replacing them with unseasoned part-time soldiers, is to up the death toll stratospherically.

WHEN we are forced to retreat, American power will be broken, period. We will have proved to the world that we are straw dogs and they will already know they can get along just fine without us. We'll just be another large land mass struggling with overwhelming debt. Like South America.

But if al queda strikes us at home, we may stop caring about poor civilians and just head out to kill Muslims no matter what the consequences. Then Bush may get his army.