Home

Google

Web Capitol Hill Blue

 
March 27, 2008 - 6:47am

Behind the Pentagon's closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush they are worried about the Iraq war's mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they'd go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff did say senior commanders in Iraq should make more frequent assessments of security conditions, an idea that appeared aimed at increasing pressure for more rapid troop reductions.

The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.

In the war zone itself, two more American soldiers were killed Wednesday in separate attacks in Baghdad, raising the U.S. death toll to at least 4,003, according to an Associated Press count. Volleys of rockets also slammed into Baghdad's Green Zone for the third day this week, and the U.S. Embassy said three Americans were seriously wounded. At least eight Iraqis were killed elsewhere in the capital by rounds that apparently fell short.

Wednesday's 90-minute Pentagon session, held in a secure conference room known as "the Tank," was arranged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide Bush an additional set of military views as he prepares to decide how to proceed in Iraq once his troop buildup, which began in 2007, runs its course by July.

"Armed with all that, the president must now decide the way ahead in Iraq," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The discussion covered not only Iraq but Afghanistan, where violence has spiked, and broader military matters, said Morrell, who briefed reporters without giving details of the discussion. Some specifics were provided by defense officials, commenting on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.

The Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned about Afghanistan and an increasingly active Taliban insurgency.

The United States has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq.

U.S. forces in Iraq peaked at 20 brigades last year and are to be cut to 15 brigades, with a total of about 140,000 combat and support troops, by the end of July. A key question facing Bush is whether security conditions will have improved sufficiently by then to justify more reductions.

One of the leading advocates of Bush's troop buildup last year, military historian Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview Wednesday that security conditions in Iraq, while better, are not good enough to justify any commitment to troop reductions beyond July.

"The military reality is that it's virtually inconceivable that it will make sense to draw down below 15 brigades this year," Kagan said.

Gates has said he would like to see the total drop to 10 brigades by the end of this year, but that now looks unlikely.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has proposed what is commonly called a "pause" to assess the impact of having withdrawn five combat brigades since December. He has argued that it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.

Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus' approach. If, as expected, Petraeus is given until August or September to weigh the effects of the current round of reductions, then it is unlikely that the force would get much below 15 brigades by the time Bush leaves office in January.

Bush is unlikely to announce his decision until after Petraeus and the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, return to Washington next month to report to Congress.

The Joint Chiefs, who do not command troops but are legally responsible for ensuring the fitness of the forces they provide to commanders, have grown increasingly concerned that the weight of five-plus years of war in Iraq could create severe, long-term problems, particularly for the Army and Marine Corps.

In their session with Bush, the chiefs laid out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force, several defense officials said. Bush was accompanied by his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The conversations today with the Joint Chiefs were much broader than just Iraq," Hadley said later. "It was a step-back look of what are the challenges we face here in the next decade."

A senior administration official said the chiefs generally are in sync with Petraeus on slowing the pace of troop reductions.

Morrell said Bush is "constantly asking the Joint Chiefs about the health of the force, about retention rates, about family life, and so that was a large part of the conversation today."

The session was led by Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He presented the consensus view of the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps on Iraq strategy.

Mullen and Gates have said repeatedly that in addition to reducing troop levels in Iraq, they want to shorten tour lengths for soldiers from 15 months to 12 months as soon as possible. A decision to do that is expected, perhaps shortly after Bush reaffirms that the number brigades in Iraq will be cut to 15 by July. The Army calculates that at that point it could drop tours to 12 months and still give units at least 12 months at home to recover, retrain and rearm before deploying again.

Morrell said a decision on shortening tour lengths would be made by Gates in consultation with Bush.

"We are not there yet," Morrell said.

Shortly after they Petraeus and Crocker reported to Congress last September Bush announced the decision to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15.

At the time, Petraeus said additional cuts would be made but that he needed to wait until this spring to recommend a timetable. Since September, violence in Iraq has ebbed and U.S. and Iraqi casualties have declined markedly, although violence has jumped in recent weeks.

The president is to give a speech Thursday in Ohio on the political and economic situation in Iraq.

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Loven contributed to this report.

Technorati Tags:
»

Generals gathered in their

Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses, "OZZY". And smirky decides to push the pause button on his toy war machine to assess the human factor? BULLSHIT!!

»

If McCain really want the

If McCain really want the White House, he should stand up to Bush immediately and demand that our troops be brought home ASAP. But McCain wants to be Commander in Chief of our Armed services and he will do nothing.

Bush's actions are criminal....

»

Obama is the only candidate

Obama is the only candidate who has said flat-out he will start bringing home the troops - but I'll bet he can be talked into slowing that way, way down.

Clinton has supported this war - and the Patriot legislation - and now she is trying to morph herself into the "peace" candidate just as did that scum-ball Bobby Kennedy did to try and elude the consequences of his actions that got us into Vietnam.

McCain, who is the only one to have experienced the personal horrors of war, will probably continue business as usual.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

»

McCain is more of a war hawk

McCain is more of a war hawk than Bush. He has consistently called for more military forces on the ground in Iraq and was calling for the "surge" even before it began.

The reality is that McCain, Bush, Clinton, and Obama could all care a rat's patootie about "the troops." What they care about is not having to admit failure and about protecting the careers, reputations, fortunes, and egos of themselves as well as the various politicians, military leaders, military contractors, and pundits that have supported and profited from this debacle. All the rest is just sactimonious bloviation and fear mongering.

We are so screwed.

»

Facing Reality

Facing Reality

Folks, if these electeds were forced to see the mass destruction they've caused, up close and personal, they'd freak. I can only imagine the millions of lives turned upside down by this illegal invasion! When I see pictures of dead babies in coffins, bloody corpses rotting in the streets, the flag-draped coffins of U.S. dead, or the wounded civilian bystanders lying in a hospital bed in immense pain, I often wonder how human beings could do this to each other. I guess it's okay as long as the MIC's don't have to see it. I imagine Iraq must reek of death by now. Those mass graves aren't going to go away.

»

Bring back the draft! Then

Bring back the draft! Then sit back and watch how fast this so-called war ends (wink)! As long as a few are paying the price for all, the public will not be motivated to force our gov't to save our troops and bring them home.

»

Pollchecker - The military

Pollchecker - The military may soon face that choice. The army and marines have been losing their trained soldiers right and left. The NCO and officer ranks have been decimated as these people have been leaving in droves.

A draft would be a political impossiblity, so recruitment will continue to be the only option. As long as the economy is lousy and opportunities for those without means remain poor, they may be able to capitalize on that for now.

On the other hand under these economic conditions, the whole "War on Terror" and massive military/war expenditures will eventually become economically unsustainable. The end to this is nearer than people think - not because policies will change much, but because personnel and credit resources have limits. The only fear I would have involves what would follow the collapse of institutional structures such a process would create.

»

Well since GW has nothing to

Well since GW has nothing to lose, he could take matters into his own hands if there was another serious threat to National Security.

Since Dick is talking a lot of crap about Iran and we've taken to single handedly attacking Pakistan with missiles, I could forsee that scenario possibly happening.

Besides they are running out of time to bleed the country dry, and what better way to illustrate how dangerous the world is and why we need a strong military leader like McCain.

If it ends up hurting McCain in the end, GW doesn't care. Privately, he would really like to sit back and watch either Senator Clinton's and/or Obama clean up their mess.

The Genuises of Propaganda (GOP) do not believe they will lose enough seats in Congress that any Democratic leader will be able to do squat!

Last but not least, You KNOW that if McCain gets elected and we face any type of military crises, HE WILL bring back the draft. He believes in mandatory military service no matter what he might politically attempt to cast himself as right now.

Besides, he might not have any other choice. Why would anyone join the military these days? Look at how the troops have been treated upon their return from Iraq? Only someone with no other choice for their future or someone with either a death wish or a desire to kill would join the military right at this moment.

Hey, that's an interesting thought. Only young people without hope for better choices enlist in the military these days. Sounds like the same type of people that organizations like Al Qaeda take advantage of.

»

"HE WILL bring back the

"HE WILL bring back the draft..."

"HE" doesn't/wouldn't have the authority to bring back the draft. HE would have to convince the Congress to bring back the draft. I don't think he'll have the kind of "capital" moxy to pull that one off. Despite calls by some dems (Rangel?) to reinstitute the draft, confronted with that possibility I think they'd back down.

But, that's just this old curmudgeon's opinion...

»

old_curmudgeon - Please,

old_curmudgeon - Please, look at the context of the entire sentence.....

"we face any type of military crises, HE WILL bring back the draft. "

If McCain is Commander in Chief and we face any type of military crises, he can pretty much do whatever he wants in the name of National Security and get away with it INCLUDING but not limited to REINSTATING THE DRAFT, even if it's only "temporary".

GW has clearly demonstrated this can happen. The Constitution is just a "dang piece of paper" or weren't you aware of that?

»

What bush was able to do was

What bush was able to do was with a largely complacent congress. The next congress will most likely have super majorities for the dems. And McCain's VP won't have anywhere the size of pellets Cheney has/had when he pressured those he could to vote their way. I'd wager that congress will not lay down for McCain as they have for Bush. And the last time I checked the congress still holds the purse strings and running a draft is a very expensive operation what with staffing and such. So, no, he won't be able to do it on his own. And I always read the entire "context" of what I comment on. In this case, it was irrelevant and doesn't change the base issue.

»

"The next congress will most

"The next congress will most likely have super majorities for the dems. And McCain's VP won't have anywhere the size of pellets Cheney has/had when he pressured those he could to vote their way. I'd wager that congress will not lay down for McCain as they have for Bush. "

I really hope you are right but I'm not so certain. I've given the American people too much credit before for having any common sense at the voting booth. Only time will tell.

As for the VP, it seriously looks like they are setting up Lieberman as VP and Lieberman is not a mild mannered, saintly Senator either. I'm willing to bet he could be just as formidable as Cheney but perhaps just not so blatant for the opinion of the American people.

»

A "president" McCain is

A "president" McCain is going to need all the senior senators he can get if he wants to get anything done. I don't see him reducing the number of "bought" senators just to fill a VP slot on the ticket. But, that's just this old curmudgeon's opinion.

»

"Military to Bush: 'We're

"Military to Bush: 'We're stretched way too thin'"

I think I just heard Darth Cheney say, "So?"

»

We don't need a draft. We

We don't need a draft. We can just implement a more or less permanent stop loss action. Once you're in, you're in. This will not decrease enlistments because the vast majority are enlisting because they have few other economic options. Note that I say 'we' because we ALL support the war, totally. Why do I say that? Are you still paying income taxes? Then you support the war. So do I. Until there is finally a taxpayer revolt the government will become more and more corrupt. It is already little more than organized crime. MORE WAR! MORE WAR! Its good for the economy.

-- Kent Shaw

»

Back Door Draft

Back Door Draft

That is what 'Stop Loss' really is. The recruiters do not tell the new recruits about the fine print in their contracts that even if the recruits enlist for 3 years and complete it, they still have an eight year obligation. What makes this interesting is that the military also has what is called a Retention Control Point or RCP.

If servicemembers do not advance within a certain period of time, they're discharged.

I have not seen that issue addressed, RCP vs Stop Loss, as some troops see RCP as a way of getting out of the military by getting busted down a rank or two under UCMJ.

»

If 156,000 US troops are

If 156,000 US troops are needed anywhere overseas, they need to be in Afghanistan with one and only one mission: Osama bin Laden - dead or alive.

We didn't have any business in Iraq to begin with; therefore, those troops need to come home - along with those in the Balkans and elsewhere that the UN and the EU uses us for their police force.

Iraq should be left alone, the 156K troops should be applied to Afghanistan, and the 31K difference should be on our southern border securing it against illegals and shooting the stuffing out of the paramilitary and regular Mexican military forces that are being rented by the drug and human smugglers.

Most sincerely,

T. J. Flapsaddle

»

McCain is as bad, if not

McCain is as bad, if not worse than Bush with regards to Iraq.
I just watching CNN, and today saw what looks like finally the start of full civil war in Iraq between Sunni/Shiites.
The mobs in Baghdad were ominous, and Americans should be very much looking to leave now as quickly as possible. We need a President to get us out----not McCain. There is going to be the overthrow of Maliki goverment, and the rise of Iran influence and of Muqtadar al Sadr.
These people are barbarians who will slaughter everyone.
I hope 2 things: 1 -that the USA makes correct judgement and starts plans to pull out.
2- considering the mobs I saw on the television, I hope Bush knows not to start up with the ignorant, inflammatory comments he usually does which make things much worse.

»

The only reason they have

The only reason they have been able to maintain their recruitment and re-uping for the past year is due to the bonuses they are paying. They are "buying" soldiers.

A young male in Flint Michigan or one of the other depressed cities whose family is deep in debt and there are no employment prospects can save the family farm and have himself a job by signing up for the army or marines. Of course there are some strings and what ifs attached to the signing bonuses but when you are desparate 5-10-20 thousand dollars looks like a life saving fortune.

Also, they tack on a lot of educational benefits for now and in the future. Actually, it's a pretty damn good package if the person takes advantage of all of it.

Some of the re-uping bonuses are high enough to be very enticing. Especially if you have the right rank and specialty. My memory ain't so good but I think some of the re-up bonuses were 40-50 thousand. Again with strings attached and the payments spred out. But, HEY! If I take the discharge, what am I going to do to feed my family? Half those guys are only employment qualified to kill those that don't belong in the neighborhood. Half of those eligible for discharge are signing up for another hitch.

This is why we still have enough troops in Iraq. Take away the bouises and the bottom would fall out of recruitment.

»

They could solve the

They could solve the immediate problem by closing 600 of those 700 bases we have spred out all over the world. The only purpose they serve is aiding the economy of the local area. In some cases they are the only economy.

Closing all those bases would save the taxpayers billions and provide a shitload of fresh fully rested troops and equipment for the Bushwars or whatever. Most of them serve no useful "military" purpose. The real reason we have so many is world wide "intimidation." But it doesn't work anymore.

»

Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments

Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists and bloggers are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site.

Any registered reader of Capitol Hill Blue can have a blog. We also welcome comments on our stories, columns or blogs and we invite you to discuss stories and other issues in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. We believe in civility at Capitol Hill Blue and must insist that commenters avoid attacks on other readers, obscenities or threats. We reserve the right to moderate or remove comments that we feel violate our rules. Posts that contain racism, homophobia, bigotry or Antisemitism will be removed and the posters banned.

Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue



Sign up for Capitol Hill Blue's email newsletter
Get our headlines each morning.

Email: