WAR: U.S. Expanding Military Force in Iraq to Record Numbers, page 1

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 06:40 PM

link

In what could be seen as a reaction to the unending violence in Iraq and the with the Iraqi elections scheduled for this January. The United States military is expanding its military force to a record number in Iraq. At its highest point after the initial invasion in March 2003 by May of that year there was a U.S. force of 148,000 troops. During that very same month President Bush declared that major combat operations were over and most soldiers thought the war had been won. Leading many soldiers to believe that they'd soon go home. Since then the numbers have dropped despite increasing violence and the battles with insurgents that have claimed many U.S. lives in Iraq. Today plans are to now raise the troop level in Iraq to 150,000.

ABCNEWS.com Full Article

WASHINGTON Dec 1, 2004 � The United States is expanding its military force in Iraq to the highest level of the war even higher than during the initial invasion in March 2003 in order to bolster security in advance of next month's national elections.

The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee when Baghdad was toppled in April 2003.

Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters Wednesday that the American force will expand from 138,000 troops today to about 150,000 by January.

The previous high for the U.S. force in Iraq was 148,000 on May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations were over and most soldiers thought the war had been won. The initial invasion force included thousands of sailors on ships in the Persian Gulf and other waters, plus tens of thousands of troops in Kuwait and other surrounding countries.

The expansion in Iraq will be achieved by sending about 1,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C., this month and by extending the combat tours of about 10,400 troops already in Iraq. Those 10,400 will be extras until March because the soldiers who were scheduled to replace them in January will arrive as planned.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I think this is a good move, and can understand it. Given the fact that elections will soon be held in Iraq.

But is it too little too late?

Has our military force in Iraq been undermanned since President Bush declared that major combat operations were over?

A claim the Bush administration never backed out of in a clear way.

Was it the politics of the last election year that may have held off this increase of troops until now?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved the moves today, according to a Pentagon statement.

Related News:

U.S. Troop Numbers in Iraq to Hit Record 150,000

Related ATSNN Discussion:

U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Nears Record

[edit on 1-12-2004 by UM_Gazz]

FredT

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 06:49 PM

link

Yeah, I think they may have missed the boat. If they had more troops on the ground they could have stabalized the situation post war much faster and we may have avoided all these problems (maybe not, but at least not as bad) Im sorry this war was planned and executed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They both bear the responsability for the screw up regarding troop strength and post war planning. They should be fired.

marg6043

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 06:54 PM

link

I remember back when the first stage of the war it was a general (I maybe mistaken) he said that to have a successful campaign in Iraq 500 thousand troops were needed and that was a combine coalition forces.

But we know that US were not able to gather such an amount with the coalition.

Anybody has to understand that with all the problems going on in Iraq as now US needs enough troops to control all areas and cities in the nation.

I still feel that poor planning is at fault for all the mess, now the opposition has been given ample time to get followers and to become organized.

UM_Gazz

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:00 PM

link

I think they underestimated the urban war aspect after the combat mission was said to be over and Iraq liberated.

The occupation after that 'liberation' of Iraq proved to be as much if not more of a problem than the Iraqi army was during the initial invasion.

But they are the Generals and commanders.. not us.

Gazz

FredT

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:01 PM

link

Originally posted by marg6043
I remember back when the first stage of the war it was a general (I maybe mistaken) he said that to have a successful campaign in Iraq 500 thousand troops were needed and that was a combine coalition forces.

It was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the long name that was hard to pronounce. He got canned before the war.

Frontline did an excellent bit on this. I will try to find a link

marg6043

posted on Dec, 1 2004 @ 07:06 PM

link

Originally posted by FredT

It was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the long name that was hard to pronounce. He got canned before the war.

Frontline did an excellent bit on this. I will try to find a link

Thanks FredT I found the link it was even before the war. He knew that US was going to need all that many troops for the post-war Iraq.

Asked about one recent estimate that up to 500,000 coalition troops might be needed in Iraq, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``No, I don't agree.'' American forces there, he said on CBS Face the Nation, were ``supremely confident in their ability to deal with the threat.'' But while the military was ``stretched thin'' around the globe, the general added, it could send more troops if commanders on the ground in Iraq made the request.

To bad the administration was over confident as the ability of the commanders on the ground to deal with Iraq, US 500 thousand troops are spread thin all over the world.

malcr

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:27 AM

link

Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.

UM_Gazz

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:37 AM

link

Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.

I hope you are wrong, I hardly believe that we can fight insurgents in Iraq and invade Iran with only 150,000 troops.

If that is the plan it sounds like a suicide mission.

Gazz

Sep

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:40 AM

link

Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.

You going to govern Iraq and conqure Iran with 150,000 troops? That for some reason does not sound logical

Curio

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:17 AM

link

Originally posted by malcr
Well I won't fall off my chair in suprise when those "extra" troops just happen to be available for quick trip next door......Iran.

150,000 troops wouldn't even start to cover it...

infinite

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:19 AM

link

If this war was UN backed, other countries would be helping out, but seeings we wanted to go without the UN...we have to clean up our own mess

marg6043

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:34 AM

link

Originally posted by infinite
If this war was UN backed, other countries would be helping out, but seeings we wanted to go without the UN...we have to clean up our own mess

Exactly the only way to take care of Iraq is with more help from other countries, and not just a few troops but a substantial amount of them, but the lack of support is a clear evidence of how the other nations don't agree with the way the invasion was done.

They all agree that Saddam was a bad cookie but the way in which US went into that country without gathering enough evidence on their MWDs was a very controversial one.

Yeah, we have a mess alright, and I wonder what bigger mess we will get if Iran is attack by US.

mattpryor

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:05 AM

link

...but the lack of support is a clear evidence of how the other nations don't agree with the way the invasion was done.

Great Britain has a troop deployment in excess of 10,000. Also don't forget Australia, Albania, Portugal, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovakia, South Korea, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia (who just deployed an extra 650 troops), Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Mongolia, Macedonia and Poland, not to mention Japan.

The reason other countries are unwilling / unable to assist militarily has nothing to do with the way the invasion was done. At the time of the invasion most of the world was agreed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD and was prepared to use them. Now we know different and it doesn't change the situation there now one bit.

All governments say they recognise the need to stabilize Iraq but most only seem to be able to spout rhetoric or make criticisms.

I can't help wondering whether this is because they want to disassociate themselves from the coalition to avoid the risk of terrorist attacks on their own soil.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by mattpryor]