It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:01 PM

The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq — well over 100,000 — for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.

Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.

Not really a surprise. Hopefully this hasnt been posted by the time i get this done.

Should be a nice bill by the end of it all.

Related Stories:

SF Gate
Miami Herald
Boston Globe

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Dulcimer]

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:12 PM
Rotating troops may contaminate the entire US army with depleted uranium dust. What does that mean in the short median and long term? Probably a totally disabled Army, and probably a draft to disable even more people.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 04:30 PM
So you guys don't want them to prepare for the worst case scenario? But if the worst case scenario happens you will blame them for not preparing for it? Can someone help me out with this?

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So you guys don't want them to prepare for the worst case scenario? But if the worst case scenario happens you will blame them for not preparing for it? Can someone help me out with this?

I didnt say that

I just posted the articles.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:57 PM
Yeah, Westpoint, I have to agree. I think you jumped to some conclusion on Dulcimer's intent of sharing this with us. I don't see where he's said anything critical so far.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 05:59 PM
Please discuss the topic not other members.

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:05 PM
Four more years? Ugh. I am no Einstein and have no crystal ball but I am beginning to think there is just no end to this war. I would think at some point the military is going to just fall over from the stress and I am sure lack of new soldiers. Are recruiting numbers going up at all yet?

posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:53 PM
This is a situation where staying WILL help. Not only to benefit, yes I said benefit Iraq, but to back up the words of the President.

Leaving the area with the job unfinished would be just plain wrong.

Sure its debatable on whether or not its worth it, but you have to ask yourself, do you start something and not finish it?

Do you start to build an addition to your home, and then just leave it half built just because your neighbours say its bad?

Its a touchy situation. It could be longer than 4 years, im sure there will be SOME troops in the area for some time to come. What there numbers will be I dont know.

They are not fighting an enemy with organization that just "surrenders" one day.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:11 AM

If I may ask a questions - Why? Why do you see it that the US should stay in there? From my perspective it seems they should leave? I'll tell you why and maybe we can see where we see things differently.....

Firstly, I'd say one of the major reasons for the huge amounts of violence there is the Us occupation. The insurgents, while maybe not too worried if they hit civilians are primarily after the service men and women. Would we agree on that? I am merely talking about those people who come from outside Iraq now, not those within it. Would you agree that those that are moving from where ever they were from to Iraq, are there to wage war against the American's?

Secondly, those native Iraqi's, if they are going to truly be under self rule, then they need to stand on their own. I am sure we will both agree that with the multiple factions, and religous tensions between each group things are going to be hard for them - but I see this as an internal matter, not part of Canada's, or the US's, or anyone's else other than Iraqi's to solve. As a Canuck we have had our fair share of hard times with Quebec, but let no outside force try to solve it for us, it is a Canadian matter internally as I see Iraqi's inter-cultural matters as their internal matters.

I understand the motive of "because they took out Saddam, they have a responsiblity", but somehow why is that the case? If someone took out Bush, Rice, Rummy and Cheney - the entire upper inner circle of the US government, indeed if someone took out the American government(Or ours, but I am not sure anyone would notice or want too other than Canadians sometimes) would those that did somehow become the new leaders? Something tells me if such a crazy thing happened, the real problem I see with this notion would be more apparent.

Saddam may or may not have had to go, but in either case he is gone now and it is time for the Iraqi's to pick up the peices and form something better. It is thought that with the American envolvement this process will be easier, but when one consders point 1 I made about those people filtering into Iraq, these people having no affinity for the Iraqi's people or community care not about blowing innocents away if they get a chance at some Infidel - remove the infidel, and haven't you just shut down a major source of the terrorism there? Two possible outcomes 1) The externals will leave without the great satan to fight anymore, or maybe more probable 2) they will stay, in which case it is now an Iraqi internal matter as per point 2.

Where is it we differ my friend?

P.S - Keep your stick on the ice mate.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:12 AM
Well my beliefs on why they should stay are just that, my beliefs.

I think they should stay mainly because backing out would be a great let down to many nations.

These "terrorists" would in fact "win" if the forces were to just back out and leave. While the United States has struck some victories, they have not accomplished their goal completely.

I believe the United States will withdraw at a time when the situation is more stable. When this will happen, I dont know.

I just believe the United States has a job to do, and when they started this, they must finish it. And I believe they will, eventually.

I really dont have much more to say than the simple statement that they should finish this at all costs. Many will agree, many will disagree.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So you guys don't want them to prepare for the worst case scenario? But if the worst case scenario happens you will blame them for not preparing for it? Can someone help me out with this?

I would suppose that most grunts of unhappiness from this article would not be due to the fact that they are preparing... but rather they are need to.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:19 AM
Do you guys think they will release some of the plan for us to go over and critique? If we are going to be there for 4 years then i think we are entitled to know what exactly they plan to do for that long.

With this new policy here on ATS maybe we will be able to make some progress without getting caught up in politics. If we are going to stay then I think we definitely need to increase troop levels and immediately fix the electricity and water problems.

With more troops we will be able to guard the power stations properly and ensure the rebuilding process moves faster. The idea of training Iraqis outside of Iraq is what we should do. I am not sure if we should train them in the US, i feel somewhere closer to Iraq is better. We have made so many mistakes in this war, it's time to start thinking smart.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:25 AM

Im just looking for some information about the goals for Iraq.

To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were:

* Self-defense
- find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists
- collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
* Humanitarian
- end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeline Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.)
* UNSC Resolution
- Resolution 1205, made in 1999.
* Regime Change
- end the Saddam Hussein government
- help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule
* Other
- secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources

Anyone care to add?

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 04:20 AM
Just as Passer By suggested, why can't we just train Iraq's own forces? Rumsfeld promised that the Iraqi Army would be trained and deployed over time and that in the mean time we could start withdrawing our own troops, but rather we've seen very little progress in those regards, and information more suggestive of a long-term stay in Iraq. It seems more and more as if we're only preparing for a long-term military presence in the Mid-East, and I'm sure we can all guess what the result of that will be.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:05 AM
shouldn't this general be fired for devulging sensitive info?? didn't they fire a general for saying that the u.s. was planning troop withdrawls?? is there a difference here??
so now that the govt/army basicaly has committed to 4 years the govt will have full rein to play with troop now the govt does not have to address the issue of bringing the troops back home....convenient......................

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:05 PM

Originally posted by clearmind
shouldn't this general be fired for devulging sensitive info?

This is the armys top general. His plans exceed the presidents term in office.

I believe he has the right to speak.

"We are now into '07-'09 in our planning," Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty.

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:22 PM
American combat troops are not leaving the Middle East until Iran has a new government....or is in ashes.

Theres no way we can pull our combat troops out now and have to return to fight a stronger Iran in 5 years. I think our whole strategy was to fence in Iran from all sides. Unfortunately, I think we may united the Iran Shiites with the Iraqi Shiites and made things worse.


posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:37 PM
Hey bro, thanks for the reply. I don't wish to sound argumentitive, merely trying to see the underlying reasons. We can all say what we beleive, but surely those beleif's are based on some form of thought, not just pie eye'd mantra's.

- Argueed, but why? What caused those beleif's? What drives, or started those beleif's?

- How? Please explain.

- But by staying they are providing more amunition for the terrorists, making it easy to sell the "See, it is American imperialism, join and fight the great satan" as everywhere the youngersters see is broken promises, and American military. How does that aid what is trying to be accomplished there? Does not that just add to the next generation of terrorists?

- See above point. Isn't this akin to saying the United States is never leaving because in order for the US to leave Iraq must be Stavle, but Iraq won't be stable unless the US leaves?

Sort of the Can't get a job unless you have experience, but can't get experience unless you get a job?

- If it wasn't Iraq, but say Canada would you think the same? If by chance say Ethopia off's the PMO, do they now run Canada? IS it their job to run Canada or is it the Canadian's? How would you react to the Ethopian's running our Country? Would you see it as a job to do, to finish, or would you see it as an invading force to be fought and driven out of Canada - besides what would an Etheopian know about Canadian Culture and subtlities?

Probably as much as we know and understand the Middle Eastern cultures and subtilites.

- Finish what? Provide a stable Iraq? There presense stops any chance of that happening. I wish it weren't true, I really wish that both sides would agree to work together but that is simply not going to be the case, neither side has reason or motive to trust the other, neither side looks at the world through the same eyes, and as assurdly as an Ethopian trying to run Canada would surely fail, regardless of the benevolence or good intentions of them.

So, let me ask you this, you say they should finsih it at all costs, but what if the costs are a few disgruntled Oil exec's, and a few nations - is that cost too high? Or do you merely mean the cost of life?


posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
Personally, my biggest reservations come from the fact that we have had 2 years to train Iraqi police/military units with nothing to show for it. Isn't basic training in the US Army like 9 weeks? Granted, the language barrier and insurgent attacks would obviously slow the training down, but this long?

The bottom line here is a question: Are there Iraqi men that support the US enough to join and fight?

top topics


log in