I received this email today:
Well, I was going to post a comment, but it just didn't seem appropriate because I didn't really have anything to add. I'm a military spouse, and this is the first time I've ever even heard of your website. My husband, who happens to be a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, was deployed last Saturday (whoever picked that date should be shot, I swear! :)) back to Iraq. Since I can't get a straight answer out of his command, or the military in general, let alone any government official (huge surprise there...). I was wondering if you could offer some insight into exactly why we are sending thousands of troops back into Iraq this month. I understand that their purpose, ostensibly, is to relieve those that have been on the ground for a year now, but I thought that we would be receiving some relief from other countries' troops, and that now that we were no longer officially on a wartime footing, the number of our troops in Iraq would be decreased, not increased. Anyway, call me crazy (or maybe I just misunderstand), but the entire situation lacks any sort of sense that I can detect. A transition of power is all well and good, but if it's to be anything other than a puppet government, shouldn't the UN be directing it, not GWB? Any input would be appreciated... Thanks, Julia [Last name withheld by request]Julia has agreed to allow me to post her email and my response. Here it is. Julia-- First of all, I hope your husband will be OK. I'm so sorry he shipped out on Saturday (Valentine's Day), and it seems that the military has the mother of all bad timings. My best friend in the world has also been mobilized (He's Army Reserve) and he's due over there in early March. He has two daughters (5 and 3) and a lovely wife. They mobilized him a week or so before Christmas, and gave him five days to get his affairs in order. Anyway, on to your question: Yeah, it's the largest troop rotation since WWII, and it's to spell the guys who have been there for a year. But your question is more about why isn't anyone helping us out. Well, there are several reasons:
- Bush alienated so many allies in the run-up to the war that they're disinclined to support us now, especially if, like France and Germany, they have massive majorities in their populations opposed to the war. Even if France and Germany wanted to help out (and there are growing signs that they do) it will be very difficult for them to do so without sparking massive protests in the streets of Paris and Berlin. They're democracies, after all, and they do have to listen to the voters on occasion.
- Rumsfeld blew it and put in too few men when the Americans first went in. That initial mistake is a root cause of the main problem: a lack of security. Many foreign governments don't want to send their soldiers to fight a war -- again one that their people probably opposed. Peacekeeping is one thing, fighting a war is another.
- The Bush Administration has not evidenced a willingness to trust the U.N. -- not without reason. The U.N. probably isn't in step with American goals in Iraq, which were not WMD or freeing the Iraqi people, but far more about maintaining a strategic base of operations in the heart of the Middle East from which to pressure Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Check out Why Iraq? as to my theories on this.
It’s hard to give added commmentary when you hit it on the head so well Chris. Like I’ve said before, my friend (who happens to be a mechanic with his own garage and two children) was given five days right before Christmas to set up his shop so his business won’t lose too many customers, say goodbye to his wife and kids, try and make something out of Christams, and generally get other affairs in order. It’s a shameful way to treat our Reserves. So, Julia, you are not alone in the Military’s impecable timing. I don’t know if that helps to hear or hurts.
In addition to the excellent points you make, I would append:
1) There has been a decrease in forces; there are about 130,000 troops in country now, while following the rotation there will be 105,000.
2) Another factor to consider is that the troops just don’t exist in the number that we need. Germany has 285,000 men in its army, a number it is planning to decrease; they’re already helping us out in Afghanistan. Similar deal with France, although I haven’t been able to find good statistics on the size of their army. In order to have the same proportion of peacekeepers to population that you had in Kosovo or Bosnia (where the security situation was much better) you’d have to have a force between 250,000 to 500,000 men, a number far beyond what any country in the world would want, or indeed could, lend out. You’d have to have a draft to get it up to those numbers.
This brings up the issue of well, what about the Iraqis themselves? That’s been our fallback solution. We’ve very quickly hired and trained almost 200,000 security forces of various stripes in Iraq, and we’re still increasing those numbers. There are several problems, though. For instance, of that 200,000, almost half are stationary security guards —- rent-a-cops. They don’t patrol and have little tangible effect on security. A lot of the cops we’ve hired belonged to the pre-war Iraqi police force, which was an extremely corrupt and brutal institution, and it’s not like we’ve had time to retrain them out of their bad habits. On the other hand, given the dangers they face, hiring people with any experince might be a lot better than hiring ones with none. We’re also training a new army (only 1,000 guys so far; that 39,000 less than we first suggested and 399,000 less than Saddam had) and a civil defense force, but, like the police, these guys are undertrained, underfunded, and in desperate need of equipment —- last week armed insurgents attacked a police station in broad daylight with RPGs and other military artillery, and police had nothing to fend them off with but shotguns.
So, to sum up, the reason we’re sending more troops into Iraq is that the troops are the only thing standing between Iraq and chaos.
Not all troops are created equal. The US is one of the few countries that has troops trained to do something other then kill people. Additionally, Americans are unique in their acceptance and tolerance of other cultures and beliefs, its part of being a melting-pot ourselves.
So its not clear that there were enough troops of the right sort anywhere in the world, such that we could send more.
To add on to the point about Rumsfeld’s prewar planning, the current issue of “Atlantic Monthly” magazine has an excellent article detailing the road leading up to the war, and the planning (or lack thereof) for a post-war Iraq…
Chris might be thinking of this article from the Jan/Feb 2004 issue of Atlantic Monthly… highly recommended also.
Blind Into Baghdad
The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge. The inside story of a historic failure.
by James Fallows
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/fallows.htm
I also recommend these articles from the same magazine…
Jan/Feb 2004 issue
Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong
How could we have been so far off in our estimates of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs? A leading Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton Administration — whose book The Threatening Storm proved deeply influential in the run-up to the war — gives a detailed account of how and why we erred
by Kenneth Pollack
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm
and
March 2004 issue
The Hollow Army
It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the entire U.S. military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq, or getting ready to go. The U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point — and one more crisis could break it.
by James Fallows
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/fallows.htm
The situation is perhaps even darker than any of these might suggest. According to an article in The Forward, excerpted at billmon.org/archives/001082.html, Bushco has hired former paramilitaries from the South African dirty war. These people are assassins, torturers… criminals in uniform.
The history of conflict shows that repressive forces can silence conflicts for a time— but in the process, they create so many grievances that later outbreaks of violence are all but inevitable. Many of the most dedicated troops of Al Qaida made their commitments in the jails and torture facilities of Egypt and other repressive regimes.
In Iraq, I don’t think repression will even work temporarily. The country is on the brink of civil war, and acts of violence will only “bring it on.”
On the good side of the ledger, the US might well be forced to bug out in such a situation. The safety of Julia’s husband, and that of all those who find themselves in this wrongful war, is in my prayers.
All my support to Julia and her husband, hoping that he comes back soon (along with all the soldiers there).
There’s been some interesting facts pointed here, so I won’t repeat them, but would like to add a few things that help to get the whole picture.
Spanish prime minister has been licking the boots of Bush, desperate as he was to put Spain on the world map as a new big country, despite the opposition of 94% of the population. Now, there are elections coming and the Partido Popular (Aznar’s party) is starting to freak out, so they probably won’t be sending troops until the elections. The Australian Prime Minister also showed some support, but then again the public opinion was strongly opposed to the war, and it looks like there’s a feeling that they’ve been fooled by Rumsfeld, Bush and the whole gang, so there’s probably not much to expect from there.
France and Germany have been dragged in the mud since they opposed the invasion (although they sent troops to Afghanistan, French troops are giving training to the Afghan police, Germany is, as far as I know, helping with logistics, since the German population is not very keen on seeing German soldiers in arms in another country). Both countries are facing elections really soon, and neither Chirac nor Schroeder are in a very good situation, so they probably won’t help much either.
Generally, the UN have been by-passed, and I can’t imagine Powell or Rumsfeld going there, saying “OK, we made a little mess there, can you help us cleaning a bit?”. Not likely.
As an anonymous US Army officer was writing recently, the main problem is that the US Army had a clear advantage on the battleground until they reached Baghdad, but they are not trained for what they are facing now, which is a mix of peacekeeping, civil unrest, anti-Saddam Iraqis who are clearly offended to see such a rise of corruption, along with a degradation of their living conditions.
Regarding how the US troops deal with a different culture, the picture doesn’t look too good so far, when even the British Royal Marines are shocked by the loud and clumsy behaviour of American soldiers.
Last but not least, don’t believe all that BS about the “Saddam followers”, it has nothing to do with that, and the Iraqis, being avid newspaper readers, know exactly what the American governments does in the middle east.
what a mess…
All my support to Julia and her husband, hoping that he comes back soon (along with all the soldiers there).
There’s been some interesting facts pointed here, so I won’t repeat them, but would like to add a few things that help to get the whole picture.
Spanish prime minister has been licking the boots of Bush, desperate as he was to put Spain on the world map as a new big country, despite the opposition of 94% of the population. Now, there are elections coming and the Partido Popular (Aznar’s party) is starting to freak out, so they probably won’t be sending troops until the elections. The Australian Prime Minister also showed some support, but then again the public opinion was strongly opposed to the war, and it looks like there’s a feeling that they’ve been fooled by Rumsfeld, Bush and the whole gang, so there’s probably not much to expect from there.
France and Germany have been dragged in the mud since they opposed the invasion (although they sent troops to Afghanistan, French troops are giving training to the Afghan police, Germany is, as far as I know, helping with logistics, since the German population is not very keen on seeing German soldiers in arms in another country). Both countries are facing elections really soon, and neither Chirac nor Schroeder are in a very good situation, so they probably won’t help much either.
Generally, the UN have been by-passed, and I can’t imagine Powell or Rumsfeld going there, saying “OK, we made a little mess there, can you help us cleaning a bit?”. Not likely.
As an anonymous US Army officer was writing recently, the main problem is that the US Army had a clear advantage on the battleground until they reached Baghdad, but they are not trained for what they are facing now, which is a mix of peacekeeping, civil unrest, anti-Saddam Iraqis who are clearly offended to see such a rise of corruption, along with a degradation of their living conditions.
Regarding how the US troops deal with a different culture, the picture doesn’t look too good so far, when even the British Royal Marines are shocked by the loud and clumsy behaviour of American soldiers.
Last but not least, don’t believe all that BS about the “Saddam followers”, it has nothing to do with that, and the Iraqis, being avid newspaper readers, know exactly what the American governments does in the middle east.
what a mess…
Julia,
Sorry about your husband having to go to Iraq. I don't think you are going to like my comments concerning your questions and sarcasm. First of all, my late husband who passed away in 1999 was a LT Col in the Army and served for over 24 years. If he were alive today, he would give anything to be over there to fight for "JUSTICE", "FREEDOM" and "LIBERTY" for ALL PEOPLE. Second, I have a son over there now. He went to boot camp and AIT, only to be sent over there 3 weeks after graduation. We had 3 days to put together a Christsmas for him because he was not goin to be here. I am very proud of him and his choice to join the Army. He is only 18 years old. He loves being there and "DOING" what he believes in doing. He is in an INFANTRY UNIT and does the "house serches", patrols, etc... Third, I feel that you are probably NOT the true "MILTARY WIFE". If so, you should support your husbands career choice, which includes NOT bad-mouthing the miltary in ANY way. I also feel that if VALENTINES Day is THAT important to you and your husband then MAYBE he should SEEK another career. I'm not trying to be mean but your main question was WHY ARE MORE TROOPS BEING SENT OVER THER THIS MONTH? My answer that that question is: They are being sent over there EVERY MONTH. But seriously, I do feel that you and a lot of other people need to have a little bit more respect for the men and women who do fight for "FREEDM", "LIBERTY", and "JUSTICE" for ALL PEOPLE, this includes my late husband, who by the way, was away from home SEVERAL Valentines DAYS, and my son. I know how precious life is, and people need to understand that it is MORE precious than Valentines Day, and NO ONE should be SHOT for deploying troops on THAT day, Sorry, VictoriaTo expand on Christopher’s observation a bit, the United States now has 1000 military bases around the world — most of them in areas of strategic resources — oil, minerals, etc. Every recent war has resulted in huge new bases in that area. Our largest overseas base now is in Kosovo, sitting on the likely route of Caspian Sea oil and gas into Europe. During the Afghanistan war we added several bases in surrounding former Russian republics. We now have a solid string of bases running from the Caspian sea down to Saudi Arabia, including four large permanent installations in Iraq. It doesnt matter what kind of government we create there; our bases will remain.
I wonder if Victoria has really understood the question Julia asked. Aside from complaining about her husbands deployment date there was no criticism of the military.
Questioning the involvement of troops in another country is NOT bad mouthing the military and shows no disrespect for them at all.
Additionally, Americans are unique in their acceptance and tolerance of other cultures and beliefs
This is a joke, right?
I do feel that you and a lot of other people need to have a little bit more respect for the men and women who do fight for “FREEDM”, “LIBERTY”, and “JUSTICE” for ALL PEOPLE
I like the quotes. Call it unconscious irony.
And if “FREEDM” is so important to you, you could at least spell it correctly…
David:
assuming you’re directing your contentious question at Billmon, he took all the words in caps straight from the end of Victoria’s comment. My apologies if my assumption here is wrong.
I was directing it at Victoria. I should have made that clear.
my soon to be husband was sent out monday feb 23 stationed out of camp lejeune, once they told me they would be in iraq for 7 months then the next 14 months, why cant they give us an honest answer? i happen to think 14 months is way to long with out leave , etc as they were told, anyway of finding out an honest answer??
The rotations are far too slow, Vickie. One of the cruelest thing about this occupation is that many of those who fought the war were forced to stay for many months thereafter. This is dangerous, likely to exacerbate combat-related PTSD.
The rotations are based exclusively on a failure to plan. We now know that the Bush Administration was planning this foray no later than 1Q 2001. They had two years to build the Army or develop non-military occupation forces (necessary and sorely lacking in Afghanistan).
The heavy dependence on the National Guard in Iraq is also absurd. These men are there for emergencies only. They are a NATIONAL Guard. Many are being sent in without proper body armor or even adequate ammunition and small arms. Some travel in canvas-covered Humvees. F-a-i-l-u-r-e t-o p-l-a-n.
Unfortunately, nothing is likely to change for over a year. Even if Bush loses the election, it will take a long time to stabilize the situation.
Thanks for great info