PDA

View Full Version : Logistics Pinning Down U.S. in Iraq



SWJED
05-14-2006, 07:47 AM
14 may New York Times - Despite Political Pressure to Scale Back, Logistics Are Pinning Down U.S. in Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/world/middleeast/14troops.html) by David Cloud and Thom Shanker.


... those pushing for significant withdrawals will run into an undeniable law of military operations: the American combat troops who remain in Iraq, and the growing number of Iraqi security forces, will still require substantial numbers of supporting American forces to remain, too, to supply food, fuel and ammunition and otherwise support combat operations.

As the Bush administration considers how and when to draw down the nearly 133,000 American troops still in Iraq, those logistical factors, among many other pressures and counterpressures, will weigh heavily toward keeping a sizable force there, delivering supplies, gathering and analyzing intelligence and providing air support to Iraqi security forces.

Senior officers are aware of the growing political pressure on the Bush administration to carry out withdrawals. Many are sympathetic with the goal, worried that the demands of keeping many more than 100,000 troops in Iraq for several more years could do long-term harm to the military and holding out hope that a permanent Iraqi government would do much to stabilize the country.

But despite the political pressures, and despite the argument by senior officials like Mr. Rumsfeld and General Abizaid that a large American presence may actually be fueling the insurgency, commanders are discussing whether the volatile security situation would allow any significant withdrawals at all in the short term, according to interviews with Pentagon officials and officers in Iraq in recent weeks...

Merv Benson
05-14-2006, 04:01 PM
I think the writers mischaracterize the position of the Centcom commander and the Secretary of Defense. Their concerns on troop size relate to a desire to make Iraqis take responsibility for their defense. The position stated by the Times authors is really closer to the John Murtha camp.

It should also be noted that the Iraqi dependence on the US for logistic support is not necessarily a bad thing. If they need the US, the US will have more leverage over their activities. If rogues elements of the Iraqi forces attempt to attack US forces, they would quickly run out of ammo and food. The logistic trail at this point is probably building a closer bond with US forces and that is a good thing.

Jedburgh
05-14-2006, 04:34 PM
I think the writers mischaracterize the position of the Centcom commander and the Secretary of Defense. Their concerns on troop size relate to a desire to make Iraqis take responsibility for their defense.
You truly belive that at the SecDef level there are no political calculations in the stance on troop levels? Lets not be so naive.

The administration is close to caving on the issue of troop levels, not entirely, but we've already seen the symbolic move of holding a brigade, and there may be other such token brigade deployment delays, cancellations or redeployments as the political pressure mounts. This just at a point when, operationally, many things are finally being done right in Iraq. With the still low troop-to-task level currently in-country, the loss of even a single brigade from the total force structure in Iraq can have a heavy immediate impact on ops.

Merv Benson
05-14-2006, 08:20 PM
The administration has been consistent in saying that troop levels will be determined by the commanders in charge of the operation. I have seen no wavering on that position. I would therefore assume that if fewer troops are going to Iraq it is because Abisaid and Casey have decided they need fewer. There is plenty of evidence for this on the record in testimony before Congress and statements made in the media. Speculation to the contrary is just speculation some of which is based on political disagreements with the administration.