Logistics Mean an Iraq Exit Can't Happen Quickly

[ProSense]

Analysis

Logistics Mean an Iraq Exit Can't Happen Quickly

by Tom Bowman

Morning Edition, June 22, 2007 · To take all U.S. forces and their equipment out of Iraq would take 10 to 14 months because of the packing and cleaning that has to be done to vehicles and other equipment let alone an orderly movement of 160,000 troops. Troops and their equipment will have to move constantly over dangerous roads to Kuwait.

Start the process, now!

Withdrawal from Vietnam.

[wakeme2008]

1. IMHO much faster than it first looks.

Between Saudi and Kuwait, most of the troops and equipment can moved there while waiting transportation back to the states. So IMHO we could be out in weeks.

[SteelPenguin]

12. Everything I"ve heard from logistics people is at least 8 months

They don't even have enough drivers to get the stuff out of there in weeks. I heard it described as enough materiel to stretch a convoy from key west florida to Seattle Washington with no breaks. They just simply don't have enough people to drive the crap there, while also watching their backs etc.

However, from what I understand we can disengage a bit first, and start removing combat troops much sooner, but a signficiant presence would need to be there to protect our 'stuff'..

[beachmom]

27. Thanks for those insights. It is always more complicated than one thinks.

I also heard the time frame you said, and Prosense's number might be even closer to the truth. A timetable for withdrawal a year from now is, in effect, calling for withdrawal to occur right away. It'll take close to a year to get it done.

Ah, one more instance of David Brooks being full of it. He said the timetable was a wimpy compromise. That withdrawing now was a "real policy change", but the timetable wasn't. Wrong again, Brooks. If it takes a year to withdraw then timetable for withdrawal and withdraw now are really the same thing.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Which speaks badly of the ineptitude of the Pentagon.

Or, it is the purist, smelliest, Buuuuuuullllshit.

It's 344 miles from Baghdad to Kuwait. They have 160,000 American troops and 350,000 Iraqi troops (supposedly) on their side. They have overwhelming air power, and they're trying to tell us that they can't secure a 344 mile corridor?

[SteelPenguin]

13. it's not just about security though

we have an ASSLOAD of crap over there. Yeah we have 160,000 troops, but you can't just throw any old marine private behind the wheel of one of those transport trucks. THey're not qualified to drive them. Or say a nurse or doctor, etc. Our stuff is so spread out, etc...

It's a massive logistics job to get it all out, safely and securely. The scale is almost beyond our ability to comprehend it.

[HereSince1628]

3. I don't believe the intent was ever to take all the equipment back

or all the troops for that matter.

Indeed, it is in the interest of the military energy complex to sell what is rapidly becoming worn out to the Iraqis in order that they may "stand up." That which remains valuable as well as US forces will be moved to permanent bases where it will be "pre-positioned" for future conflict, much as military hardware was handled in Germany during the cold war.

[dkofos]

4. Bullshit!! It took 6 weeks to fight our way into Bagdad, It should take

half that time to get out.

[TheWraith]

5. It also took fourteen months to get troops in that position in the first place.

Like it or not, there is some truth to the principle of how long it would take to get out.

[dkofos]

7. Put me in charge and it will be 3 weeks!!

[SteelPenguin]

14. You have experieince in large scale logistics?

They just don't even have the manpower or equipment to do it that fast.

[ProSense]

16. Grant that it was a different time, this is from the link in the OP, and

based in part on the information in Kissinger's article:

So it took three years to withdraw more than a half million troops from Vietnam with "more than 600,000 armed communist forces" on the ground, yet he's arguing that the U.S. can't withdraw 120,000 troops from Iraq in a year when the best estimate is that there are only a few thousand foreign fighters in the country? Actually, Nixon withdrew about 300,000 troops from Vietnam in about a year.

I think 8 months to a year is plenty of time.

[SteelPenguin]

17. 8-14 months is plenty

It'd be a fairly chaotic experience to do it in 8 months, but that's the low end of figures I've seen. The problem isn't trooops though. They could have every single american troop out of there as fast as they can load them onto trucks or just hard march them to Kuwait. The problem is all the materiel and equipment.

Anyone claming we can get every single tank, truck, cargo container, tent, medicial instrument, etc, out of there in 3 weeks is just ignorant of the scale involved. That's why it'll take a long time, because we have so much crap there, and crap takes time to get out....so to speak...

[Gabi Hayes]

6. we're not going ANYwhere

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kwiatkowski.php?articleid=2762

[grytpype]

8. Some people can't face a reality check, can they?

So let's miracle all the troops home this afternoon. Just click your heels together three times.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. No they can't

you just can move that amount of men or material overnight

[ProSense]

11. The question is:

Is there a bill in Congress that calls for overnight withdrawal? Answer: No!

If it takes 10 to 14 months (and I'm sure that it can be accomplished within that time frame) it's incumbent on Congress to pass binding legislation setting a one-year deadline for withdrawal.

[Solo_in_MD]

15. Not sure I agree with the term *incumbent*, but it is within their authority to do so

[uppityperson]

31. Start the process now. The sooner it is started, the sooner it will be done.

Bring the troops home now for me means start the process now.

[ProSense]

9. Kick!

One year is plenty of time. Set a deadline and withdraw the troops!

[Jonathan50]

18. A very large proportion of the equipment is worn out..

A lot of it would probably be cheaper to just abandon than to haul to Kuwait, load on ships, return to the US and then refurbish.

Anniston Army depot already has thousands of worn out pieces of equipment on hand with no real prospect of getting them refurbished in anything like a reasonable length of time.

Desert sand and dust is pure hell on equipment.

Look at what the Brits did at Dunkirk, they had everything that would float to pull their troops out.

Where there is a will there is a way.

What we lack is the will.

[mmonk]

19. How long did it take us to get to Baghdad again?

[librechik]

20. They only say this becasue they try to make us look foolish. NOBODY

is suggesting a precipitous pullout. obviously, it can't be done. But we HAVE TO START ANYWAY

[BlooInBloo]

21. Bullshit. If they wanted to be outta there in a week, they could.

[SteelPenguin]

22. Only by abandoning the vast majority of their equipment

[BlooInBloo]

23. I miss pgh.

[SteelPenguin]

24. So come back!

[BlooInBloo]

25. :) Not enough use for a mathematical programmer out there. I miss Peachins tho!

[Jonathan50]

29. So what, the vast majority of the equipment is in rags and tatters..

[SteelPenguin]

33. That's simply not true

[Jed Dilligan]

26. Raising a number of scary questions

How small will the last contingent to leave be? Could they end up in serious trouble? Will full-on civil war break out WHILE we are trying to leave? Will that hasten or slow our departure?

[ProSense]

28. Kick! n/t

[uppityperson]

30. Well, the sooner they get started, the sooner it will be done.

[CK_John]

32. I think the only path out will be to fight our way across Syria to the Med. n/t

[ProSense]

34. Kick! n/t