WSWS -- Iraq troop rotation plan: Pentagon prepares for next war

[Mike Niendorff]

As much as I hate quoting from WSWS, I think this one is at least worth a read:

-----

Iraq troop rotation plan: Pentagon prepares for next war
WSWS, by James Conachy,1/13/04
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/rota-j13.shtml


Over 250,000 US soldiers will leave or arrive in Iraq between now and the end of May in the largest rotation of troops in a combat zone that has been attempted by the American military since World War II. The risks of the massive movement of personnel and hardware are considerable and its implications, given the record of the Bush administration, are ominous. The rotation is designed to allow six battle-hardened US Army divisions that have been worn out by lengthy deployments in 2003 to rest, refit, and be combat-ready again as early as September.

...

The Pentagon estimates that some 39,000 of the new troops {ie: those rotating into Iraq, rather than out} -- close to 40 percent of the total force -- will be National Guard or reservists. Over 15,000 National Guard infantry are being sent for 12-month's frontline duty in some of the most volatile areas of the country such as Baghdad, Mosul and cities in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" such as Tikrit.

The active Army is therefore only contributing 45,000 to 50,000 troops to Iraq during this year -- the number the Bush administration had based its plans around {see: Rumsfeld's prewar estimates of "50,000 troops" for Iraq}.

...

The logistical preconditions for another war will begin to take shape from as early as July. The rotation schedule means that by March the Army will have back in US bases the bulk of its rapid deployment force, the four division-plus XVIII Airborne Corps, which formed the backbone of the invasion of Iraq. The units will then be given four months to "reset" for use elsewhere. By September, the heavily-armored Fourth Infantry and First Armored Divisions will also have been "reset" after their Iraq deployment.

Coinciding with the Army schedule, 11 of the US Navy's 12 aircraft carrier strike groups are also currently out of service undergoing maintenance or post-maintenance training. All of them will be available for deployment by mid-2004.

In the months leading up to the US presidential election, the White House will have both the fleet and 120,000 battle-experienced troops to attack the next target in the "war on terror". The American soldiers occupying Iraq will be left to be killed and wounded to protect this earlier conquest, one suspects in ever-greater numbers.


(much, much more)


-----


MDN

(note to mods: this is a *long* article ... I tried to whittle it down to the bare essentials, but feel free to edit further if this is still too big of an excerpt)

[Mike Niendorff]

1. I didn't post this article lightly, folks. Please: read it.

Please, take a moment and consider what this guy is saying.

This isn't some sort of 'socialist recruitment pitch' or something, regardless of the editorial biases of the source.

This is, specifically, a point-by-point analysis of exactly how Bush & Co. are setting up the next round of Iraq troop rotations, how the specifics of the Bushies' plans will *greatly* endanger incoming troops (a *huge* percentage of which will be from the reserves and the National Guard), and how this appears to represent a coordinated effort to free up -- and make combat-ready -- enough troops for the Bushies to launch another war of aggression as soon as this coming September.

These are serious claims, and, imho, they deserve some serious consideration.


MDN

[Ilsa]

2. Wow. Good analysis and speculation from

my limited perspective. Who's next? Syria? Are we going to accuse them of supplying insurgents with advanced weapons? I guess that's all Bush thinks he needs: a war in full swing during October and November. The idea of leaving inadequately prepared and outfitted troops in a place as dangerous as Iraq is tantamount to gross mismanagement, IMO.

I truly feel for reservists and Nat. Guard members who thought they wouldn't be sent any further than a nearby base to cover for the Army when they are deployed.

Thanks for the article and link.

[ixion]

3. very interesting analysis... thanks for posting this.

I understand your hesitance to post stuff from wsws, but I think this was well worth the read. It will be interesting (albeit tragic) to see how much of this emerges as true.

[bemildred]

4. I have to wonder how they know all this?

Nevertheless it seems consistent with the "faith-based"
military planning that is characteristic of our modern
military "leaders".

[teryang]

5. Capability vs. intention

I think that the description of the troop rotations and force posture are accurate. They are consistent with what has been reported in the press. To draw the inference that another war is soon on the way is quite another thing. Particularly in light of the current diaster in Iraq.

I don't put anything past this regime, but the Army is taking a pasting in Iraq. There will be a lot of internal resistance to further elective wars in the near future, especially by the Army. (How do you fight against IEDs? They are basically booby traps.)

If there is actual planning to initiate further warfare before the election, it will probably become public knowledge as those opposed to it will leak the information, in one way or another. Without such leaks, it is premature to predict. My personal feeling is that if such a war was currently being planned by the BFEE it would be kept secret until after November.

Neocon advocacy for further ill considered acts of aggression are a part of a psychological warfare campaign meant to intimidate other powers. The fact is that we are in a poor position to fight any other conflict. Our national security ability to respond to other threats has been weakened. Rotations and refitting will only return the forces to their pre-war strength which is inadequate for a conflict in Iran or Korea.

Question, what is the "national emergency" which warrants the continued mobilization of National Guard and Reserve forces?

[bemildred]

6. Interestingly, the intimidation is not working.

No one seems to want to pick a fight, you don't hear a lot of
"Death to America" etc. outside the refugee camps, but none of
the larger players are obeying either, and a number of states
large and small seem to be pursuing independent security arrangements,
almost as though the USA is seen as less relevant to maintaining
order. :crazy: I suspect that THAT is the "national emergency".

If we were seen to fail militarily in Iraq, it would be the end of
our ability to scare the rest of the world into line, and I would
wager that most of what passes for planning in this administration
is aimed at minimizing the damage done there. I would also wager
that it is too late to fix it, but I don't expect that they will
quit trying until there is a change of administrations. Then you
may see a willingness to face reality.