thedrifter
12-15-06, 07:02 AM
Q&A: Options for new course in Iraq war
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Thu Dec 14, 6:18 PM ET
The options President Bush is considering for a new course in the Iraq war all have potentially troublesome ramifications, particularly if he decides to send tens of thousands more troops to reinforce Baghdad. The strain on already-stretched U.S. ground forces would multiply.
Here is a look at some of the options under review:
Q: What would be the point of sending still more troops to Baghdad in the midst of rampant sectarian violence?
A: Senior U.S. commanders in Iraq say winning the battle for Baghdad, as the capital and largest city, is a make-or-break proposition. If they, in combination with Iraqi troops and police, cannot achieve stability in Baghdad, then there is little hope that the country as a whole can escape the cycle of violence, division and despair. So, if a bigger U.S. force could make a difference in the near term, some believe it would be worth a try.
Q: Doesn't that contradict the goal of easing U.S. troops out of the fight and beginning to send them home?
A: It does. Opponents of adding U.S. troops say it would only feed Iraq's dependence on American military force, delaying the day when they could stand on their own. But some have proposed that over the coming year, if — and it's a very big "if" — the Iraqis show enough progress, the U.S. forces could pull back to the periphery of the capital. They would stand ready to re-enter the city in a crisis. This was the upshot of an option that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld mentioned in a Nov. 6 memo to Bush.
Q: The U.S. military is huge, so why would adding 20,000 or so to the 134,000 already in Iraq be so hard?
A: There are many layers to the problem, starting with the fact that the Army and Marine Corps simply do not have available more combat brigades fully trained, equipped and rested from earlier tours in Iraq. They can, and would, provide additional brigades if required by the president, but it would be done at the cost of cheating thousands of soldiers and Marines of the time they require to recuperate, retrain and rearm.
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a congressionally chartered commission Thursday that at the current pace, if the Army is not allowed to make more use of the National Guard and Reserve, the active-duty Army "will break." Schoomaker wants Congress to approve an increase in the size of the Army.
Q: What about using more soldiers to train the Iraqis?
A: That is a proposal backed by many in the Pentagon and in Iraq, and in fact that already is being done. Commanders in the Baghdad area, in western Anbar province and in northern Iraq have taken the initiative to pull troops out of combat missions and partner them with Iraqi army units as advisers and mentors.
The question is how many additional trainers and advisers would be needed and how effective they can be. Language is a barrier. Many in the Pentagon expect Bush to decide to convert an even larger portion of the combat force in Iraq to the training/advising role as a way of accelerating the progress of Iraqi security forces.
Q: Why not just turn the whole combat mission over the Iraqis, now that the Saddam Hussein regime is long gone?
A: That has been the goal all along. The problem is getting the Iraqis to the point where they can effectively fight the insurgents, reconcile their sectarian differences and establish a fully functioning national government. The fear is that if U.S. troops leave too soon, the country will collapse, giving al-Qaida terrorists a haven from which to plan and carry out terrorism in the region and potentially against U.S. interests.
Q: Aren't there diplomatic initiatives that would help?
A: The Iraq Study Group recommended to Bush that he launch a new effort to involve Syria and Iran in talks about resolving the violence in Iraq, but the president has not embraced that idea. Others have suggested a broader forum for discussions about Iraq's future, to include Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others. Iraqi leaders have been cool to that proposal, however, saying Iraq can solve its problems without outside interference.
Q: Isn't it time to give up on the Sunnis, since they are the ones fueling the insurgency?
A: Some have suggested to Bush that he refocus U.S. efforts on backing a strong ruling Shiite government and let the Iraqis themselves figure out how to deal with the Sunni minority. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has argued against this, contending that anything that looks like abandoning the Sunnis will be unsustainable in Iraq and a recipe for continual civil war.
Q: Why all the focus on a new strategy now, nearly four years into the war?
A: Conditions inside Iraq are deteriorating, the American public is weary of an ever-rising death toll, and voters in November sent a message of discontent by handing the Democrats control of the House and the Senate. Rumsfeld told Bush one day before the election that the time had come for a "major adjustment in U.S. strategy, and the president himself has acknowledged that progress is too slow.
Ellie
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Thu Dec 14, 6:18 PM ET
The options President Bush is considering for a new course in the Iraq war all have potentially troublesome ramifications, particularly if he decides to send tens of thousands more troops to reinforce Baghdad. The strain on already-stretched U.S. ground forces would multiply.
Here is a look at some of the options under review:
Q: What would be the point of sending still more troops to Baghdad in the midst of rampant sectarian violence?
A: Senior U.S. commanders in Iraq say winning the battle for Baghdad, as the capital and largest city, is a make-or-break proposition. If they, in combination with Iraqi troops and police, cannot achieve stability in Baghdad, then there is little hope that the country as a whole can escape the cycle of violence, division and despair. So, if a bigger U.S. force could make a difference in the near term, some believe it would be worth a try.
Q: Doesn't that contradict the goal of easing U.S. troops out of the fight and beginning to send them home?
A: It does. Opponents of adding U.S. troops say it would only feed Iraq's dependence on American military force, delaying the day when they could stand on their own. But some have proposed that over the coming year, if — and it's a very big "if" — the Iraqis show enough progress, the U.S. forces could pull back to the periphery of the capital. They would stand ready to re-enter the city in a crisis. This was the upshot of an option that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld mentioned in a Nov. 6 memo to Bush.
Q: The U.S. military is huge, so why would adding 20,000 or so to the 134,000 already in Iraq be so hard?
A: There are many layers to the problem, starting with the fact that the Army and Marine Corps simply do not have available more combat brigades fully trained, equipped and rested from earlier tours in Iraq. They can, and would, provide additional brigades if required by the president, but it would be done at the cost of cheating thousands of soldiers and Marines of the time they require to recuperate, retrain and rearm.
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a congressionally chartered commission Thursday that at the current pace, if the Army is not allowed to make more use of the National Guard and Reserve, the active-duty Army "will break." Schoomaker wants Congress to approve an increase in the size of the Army.
Q: What about using more soldiers to train the Iraqis?
A: That is a proposal backed by many in the Pentagon and in Iraq, and in fact that already is being done. Commanders in the Baghdad area, in western Anbar province and in northern Iraq have taken the initiative to pull troops out of combat missions and partner them with Iraqi army units as advisers and mentors.
The question is how many additional trainers and advisers would be needed and how effective they can be. Language is a barrier. Many in the Pentagon expect Bush to decide to convert an even larger portion of the combat force in Iraq to the training/advising role as a way of accelerating the progress of Iraqi security forces.
Q: Why not just turn the whole combat mission over the Iraqis, now that the Saddam Hussein regime is long gone?
A: That has been the goal all along. The problem is getting the Iraqis to the point where they can effectively fight the insurgents, reconcile their sectarian differences and establish a fully functioning national government. The fear is that if U.S. troops leave too soon, the country will collapse, giving al-Qaida terrorists a haven from which to plan and carry out terrorism in the region and potentially against U.S. interests.
Q: Aren't there diplomatic initiatives that would help?
A: The Iraq Study Group recommended to Bush that he launch a new effort to involve Syria and Iran in talks about resolving the violence in Iraq, but the president has not embraced that idea. Others have suggested a broader forum for discussions about Iraq's future, to include Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others. Iraqi leaders have been cool to that proposal, however, saying Iraq can solve its problems without outside interference.
Q: Isn't it time to give up on the Sunnis, since they are the ones fueling the insurgency?
A: Some have suggested to Bush that he refocus U.S. efforts on backing a strong ruling Shiite government and let the Iraqis themselves figure out how to deal with the Sunni minority. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has argued against this, contending that anything that looks like abandoning the Sunnis will be unsustainable in Iraq and a recipe for continual civil war.
Q: Why all the focus on a new strategy now, nearly four years into the war?
A: Conditions inside Iraq are deteriorating, the American public is weary of an ever-rising death toll, and voters in November sent a message of discontent by handing the Democrats control of the House and the Senate. Rumsfeld told Bush one day before the election that the time had come for a "major adjustment in U.S. strategy, and the president himself has acknowledged that progress is too slow.
Ellie