U.S. Likely to Soon Cut Troops in Iraq - Army General

[Alli]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army expects to begin cutting troop levels in Iraq (news - web sites) later this year, a move that would reduce the level of American forces there to below 138,000, an Army general said on Thursday.

"I think for the next force rotation, we'll start seeing that (the) force rotation coming in will be smaller than the force that's in there," said Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff.


"I know you're all waiting for a number here, and I'm not going to give you one because I don't know," Cody added in an interview with defense reporters.


The general said the next annual U.S. force rotation for Iraq would begin this summer and that the number of soldiers sent into the rotation later in the year is likely to be smaller than those coming out.


Another defense official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters on Thursday that the number of U.S. Marines in Iraq also was likely to decline in the new rotation.


There are 150,000 American troops in Iraq -- most of them Army soldiers -- but the number will go down to 138,000 before the end of this month. The force was increased by 12,000 in December to provide security for the Iraqi elections in January.


But U.S. defense officials have said the number will likely begin falling below 138,000 as the Iraqi army and security forces are trained to take over security in the country.


Cody's comments came as Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was accused in his country on Thursday of bowing to pressure from the United States after he apparently backtracked on an announcement that Italian troops would start withdrawing from Iraq in September.

complete article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050317/ts_nm/iraq_usa_troops_dc)

[Alli]

What psycho gave this one star? :confused: This is good news...it's a start.

[Spectre]

What psycho gave this one star? :confused: This is good news...it's a start.

I helped :)

[Bman]

Good news if its not a lie


I added to the star total

Bman

[lotimer]

Excellent news. It's about damn time.

[Mr. Drags]

L:et's hope this is true. But I don't like to see unnamed sources in news stories, it inherently weakens the story's credibility

[Desaix]

Good news for the American people,not so for the Iraqi's.Since the fall of Saddam the country has needed more troops on the ground,as said by Bremer and Powell,to provide security for the Sunni areas(where many could not vote)and the roads around Baghdad.Security should have come before elections.Nigeria and so many other oil rich failed states will testify for that.

[involved]

US Army seeks longer enlistments as recruitment falters

Posted 08:16pm (Mla time) Mar 17, 2005
By Maxim Kniazkov
Agence France-Presse



WASHINGTON, District of Columbia, United States of America -- The US Army has asked Congress to allow it to extend enlistment contracts offered to future soldiers by two years in order to "stabilize the force," as top defense officials warned that key recruitment targets for the year could be missed.

The request came as the House of Representatives on Wednesday put its stamp of approval on an 81.4-billion-dollar supplemental spending bill that contains new benefits for US troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the new money notwithstanding, Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Franklin Hagenbeck told a House subcommittee that yearly recruitment goals for the Army reserve and the National Guard were "at risk."

"In the manning area, we need Congress to change the maximum enlistment time from six years to eight years in order to help stabilize the force for longer periods of time," Hagenbeck went on to say.

The appeal coincided with the release of a new congressional report that showed that the intensifying anti-American
Print this story
Send this story
Write the editor
View other stories


insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan were followed by a distinct drop in the number of volunteers willing to serve in the branches of the military that see the most combat.

The Army reserve and Army National Guard respectively met only 87 percent and 80 percent of their overall recruiting goals in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, according to the study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

The Air Force Reserve attained 91 percent of its target, the Air National Guard 71 percent and the Navy Reserve 77 percent.

The shortfalls could potentially have a noticeable effect on units operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding areas because, according to defense officials, reservists and guardsmen make up about 46 percent of the total force deployed there.

Recruitment problems are beginning to dog even active duty units that have not experienced them in a long time.

The Marine Corps, whose reputation for efficiency and toughness has always helped it attract ambitious young men and women, missed its goal by 84 recruits in January and another 192 in February for the first time in 10 years, the GAO report said.

"There is no disputing the fact that the force is facing challenges," acknowledged Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Charles Abell.

The obvious cooling off in Americans' interest in military service is observed despite multiplying benefits and financial enticements offered by the Pentagon to those signing up for service.

The supplemental measure passed by the House, for example, increases the maximum service member group life insurance benefits from 250,000 dollars to 400,000 dollars.

The onetime death gratuity for combat fatalities received by family members is going up from 12,000 to 100,000 dollars.

At 150,000 dollars a pop, reenlistment bonuses paid to experienced Special Forces members are beginning to resemble Christmas paychecks on Wall Street, while one-time cash incentives for brand new recruits went up from 8,000 dollars to 10,000 dollars -- and to 20,000, if they agree to take one of the military jobs deemed hard to fill.

College scholarships, the principle reason why many young people join the military, have been boosted by the Army from 50,000 dollars to 70,000.

Still, Army reserve commander Lieutenant General James Helmly warned in January that with lengthy and grueling deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the reserve is rapidly turning into "a broken force" and may not be able to meet its operational requirements in the future.




http://news.inq7.net/world/index.php?index=1&story_id=30824

[Bman]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army expects to begin cutting troop levels in Iraq (news - web sites) later this year, a move that would reduce the level of American forces there to below 138,000, an Army general said on Thursday.


MARCH 17, 2005?????


:add09: :add09: :add09:

[Bman]

from the September 22, 2006 edition -

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0922/p01s03-usmi.html


NOT COMING SOON: US TROOP CUTS IN IRAQ


The Pentagon may have to boost the Army's size or call up more reserves to ease the war's burden.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

In recent days, US military commanders have delivered a bleak message about Iraq: The number of American troops there is not likely to be substantially reduced anytime soon.

Yet the current force may have been strained near the breaking point by frequent deployments to the region, say experts. That means in the months to come, the Pentagon could face increased pressure to expand the size of the active-duty Army, or rely even more heavily on call-ups of National Guard and Reserve units.

Recruiting more soldiers would take time. But any kind of action might be welcomed by those already in uniform, many of whom have served multiple tours of duty in the Middle East.

"As a matter of fairness, we should be trying to help these people," says Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Currently, about 144,000 US troops are in Iraq, said Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, chief US military spokesman in Iraq, at an operational briefing in Baghdad this week. There is no predetermined force level set months in advance, said General Caldwell. Instead, the numbers depend on the requirements necessary to carry out the US mission at any given point in time.

"What we've always said is that the level of troops here in the country of Iraq [is] conditions-based," said Caldwell.

Late last year, US military officials said they hoped the number of US troops on the ground could be cut to the 100,000 level by the end of 2006. But like so many other US expectations about progress in the region, that turned out to be overly optimistic.

A surge in sectarian violence, and continued insurgent activity, means that the US force in Iraq will stay at current levels through the beginning of next year, Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of US Central Command, told a group of military reporters in Washington this week.

"We clearly did not achieve the force levels we had hoped to," said General Abizaid.

In the short run, violence against US troops may even increase in Iraq, as Al Qaeda fighters there step up activity during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Already, the past week has seen an increase in execution-style murders in Baghdad, according to US officials.

Meanwhile, the pace of deployments to Iraq has battered the US military, particularly the Army and Marine Corps.

Army officials would like to have a cushion of two brigades training and resting at home for every one brigade of approximately 3,500 personnel deployed overseas. But real-world conditions have meant the actual ratio is one brigade at home to one overseas.

In practical terms, this means that active-duty brigades get only one year at home in between tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, as opposed to the goal of two years.

"Five years into major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, our nation's armed forces are under enormous strain," concludes a recently released report on the region by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

This strain affects more than people, according to CSIS. Army leaders now consider all nondeployed Army brigade combat teams in the United States - both active and National Guard - to be unready for operations. Equipment and personnel shortfalls may mean the US does not have the forces it needs to respond to a terrorist attack or unexpected crisis.

"National leaders need to honestly debate whether the country can continue to prosecute multiple overseas operations without increasing the size of US ground forces," says the CSIS study.

About 500,000 soldiers are currently in the Army. Plans call for it to increase to about 512,000 in the foreseeable future.

But even reaching that level may take time. Growing beyond that, if authorized, would take even longer. And the need is pressing now, note experts.

Short of obligatory national service, moves such as opening the US military to foreigners with no US ties, but who wish to move toward US residence or citizenship, might be necessary for the Army to grow in a reasonable amount of time.

"It takes a couple of years to make a meaningful increase in the size of the Army," says Mr. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.

The US could send National Guard and Reserve units back to Iraq on a faster deployment schedule, but many such units have already hit legal limits that allow them to be sent overseas only two years out of every five.

Given the level of violence and the pace of training of Iraqi forces, substantial numbers of US troops may well remain in Iraq at least through the presidency of George W. Bush, and perhaps beyond.

It will be two to three years at the earliest before Iraq's regular military forces can stand on their own against Iraqi insurgents and militias, according to CSIS military expert Anthony Cordesman. It will be five years before they will be strong enough to defend against neighboring states.

"There can be no fixed time scale for US reductions," writes Mr. Cordesman in an analysis released earlier this year.

• Wire services were used in this report.

[Alli]

MARCH 17, 2005?????


:add09: :add09: :add09:
Yes. Imaging troop level plans changing over the course of time :rolleyes:

[Bman]

Yes. Imaging troop level plans changing over the course of time :rolleyes:


I know.. I'm just pointing out that they've been saying that for years now..

I was laughing at the article.. not at you, :)

[Alli]

I know.. I'm just pointing out that they've been saying that for years now..

I was laughing at the article.. not at you, :)
Ah, ok, I was wondering at the date :)

[Bman]

Ah, ok, I was wondering at the date :)

Its a long story.. there was a bump war last night


I foolishly sent in my troops.