Sgt Sostand
09-25-03, 12:23 PM
September 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is so squeezed for troops to send to Iraq that it may have to alert thousands more National Guard and Reserve members within several weeks for possible call-up.
That depends mainly on whether President Bush succeeds in the next few weeks in persuading Turkey, India, Pakistan or South Korea to form another multinational division for Iraq duty. Without that division, some mix of additional U.S. active-duty and reserve troops may be needed.
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the administration still hopes for major contributions from other nations, but military planners are not counting on it.
"Hope is not a plan," Pace told reporters Wednesday.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the private Lexington Institute, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld may have another plan in the event he does not get the foreign troops he was hoping for: Bring home some U.S. troops rather than replace them with reservists.
Thompson says the Pentagon is wary of adding to the burden on reservists, many greatly inconvenienced by call-ups that uproot them from families and civilian jobs. Over time, this stress could make it harder for the military to retain reservists.
"Normal people will have to diminish their civilian careers in order to serve in the reserves, and that's a bargain almost nobody would be willing to accept," Thompson said.
Although reservists are called on to serve in every overseas conflict, the scope of their involvement and length of their duty in Iraq have raised politically sensitive questions about whether the Bush administration is asking citizen soldiers to shoulder too much of the burden.
Pace said decisions about activating more reserves are coming soon because waiting longer would cut into the mobilization and training time they would need to deploy early next year.
"We need to be making decisions about alerting reservists over the next four to six weeks," Pace said.
Bush did not receive any offers of troops for Iraq during two days of meetings with foreign leaders at the United Nations this week, said a senior U.S. official, who added that the question of sending troops did not even come up during Bush's talks with the leaders of Pakistan and India.
The United States will continue seeking a new U.N. resolution encouraging other countries to send troops, but it may take a while to work out, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in an Associated Press interview, said he wants to see a Muslim force assembled for Iraq that has the blessing of the United Nations or an international Islamic organization. He said he was talking with leaders of other Islamic countries.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the prospect of additional reservists getting called up reflects the administration's failure to build an adequate international coalition.
"More American families now face possible separation because of the failed diplomacy of the Bush administration," he said. "The president's go-at-it alone policy has not encouraged foreign leaders to send their troops to Iraq to assist our men and women, who are stretched thin."
Rumsfeld told a Senate committee Wednesday that U.S. allies are likely to commit only a limited number of forces, beyond a British-led international division that is operating in southern Iraq and a Polish-led division that recently replaced a U.S. Marine division.
Pace said it was "not a given" that an additional U.S. deployment would have to be reservists. It could be an active-duty Army or Marine force, although they are stretched thin.
Among the factors to be weighed:
- Is security in Iraq likely to be better, worse or about the same four to six months from now, when the Pentagon's troop rotation plan calls for an as-yet-unidentified international force to take the place of the Army's 101st Airborne Division?
- How many more Iraqis can be trained by then for security duties to replace American or international troops?
- How many foreign troops will be provided, beyond those already in place?
- If the foreign contributions fall short, how many active-duty U.S. troops would be available to send to Iraq?
The United States has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, of whom at least 20,000 are National Guard and Reserve.
Of the 302 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, at least 47 were National Guard or Reserve.
Sound Off.....Do you think the Reserves and National Guard are being called upon too much, or is that just part of their job?
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is so squeezed for troops to send to Iraq that it may have to alert thousands more National Guard and Reserve members within several weeks for possible call-up.
That depends mainly on whether President Bush succeeds in the next few weeks in persuading Turkey, India, Pakistan or South Korea to form another multinational division for Iraq duty. Without that division, some mix of additional U.S. active-duty and reserve troops may be needed.
Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the administration still hopes for major contributions from other nations, but military planners are not counting on it.
"Hope is not a plan," Pace told reporters Wednesday.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the private Lexington Institute, said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld may have another plan in the event he does not get the foreign troops he was hoping for: Bring home some U.S. troops rather than replace them with reservists.
Thompson says the Pentagon is wary of adding to the burden on reservists, many greatly inconvenienced by call-ups that uproot them from families and civilian jobs. Over time, this stress could make it harder for the military to retain reservists.
"Normal people will have to diminish their civilian careers in order to serve in the reserves, and that's a bargain almost nobody would be willing to accept," Thompson said.
Although reservists are called on to serve in every overseas conflict, the scope of their involvement and length of their duty in Iraq have raised politically sensitive questions about whether the Bush administration is asking citizen soldiers to shoulder too much of the burden.
Pace said decisions about activating more reserves are coming soon because waiting longer would cut into the mobilization and training time they would need to deploy early next year.
"We need to be making decisions about alerting reservists over the next four to six weeks," Pace said.
Bush did not receive any offers of troops for Iraq during two days of meetings with foreign leaders at the United Nations this week, said a senior U.S. official, who added that the question of sending troops did not even come up during Bush's talks with the leaders of Pakistan and India.
The United States will continue seeking a new U.N. resolution encouraging other countries to send troops, but it may take a while to work out, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in an Associated Press interview, said he wants to see a Muslim force assembled for Iraq that has the blessing of the United Nations or an international Islamic organization. He said he was talking with leaders of other Islamic countries.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said the prospect of additional reservists getting called up reflects the administration's failure to build an adequate international coalition.
"More American families now face possible separation because of the failed diplomacy of the Bush administration," he said. "The president's go-at-it alone policy has not encouraged foreign leaders to send their troops to Iraq to assist our men and women, who are stretched thin."
Rumsfeld told a Senate committee Wednesday that U.S. allies are likely to commit only a limited number of forces, beyond a British-led international division that is operating in southern Iraq and a Polish-led division that recently replaced a U.S. Marine division.
Pace said it was "not a given" that an additional U.S. deployment would have to be reservists. It could be an active-duty Army or Marine force, although they are stretched thin.
Among the factors to be weighed:
- Is security in Iraq likely to be better, worse or about the same four to six months from now, when the Pentagon's troop rotation plan calls for an as-yet-unidentified international force to take the place of the Army's 101st Airborne Division?
- How many more Iraqis can be trained by then for security duties to replace American or international troops?
- How many foreign troops will be provided, beyond those already in place?
- If the foreign contributions fall short, how many active-duty U.S. troops would be available to send to Iraq?
The United States has about 130,000 troops in Iraq, of whom at least 20,000 are National Guard and Reserve.
Of the 302 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, at least 47 were National Guard or Reserve.
Sound Off.....Do you think the Reserves and National Guard are being called upon too much, or is that just part of their job?