DoD Proposes Enlarging Army, Marines
Associated Press | January 11, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Defense Department on Thursday proposed increasing the size of the U.S.Army and Marine Corps by a combined total of 92,000 troops and announced it will recall to duty sooner than planned some National Guard and Reserve troops who already have served yearlong tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.

At a news conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates also announced that "from this point forward," the amount of time that Guard and Reserve units will be mobilized for federal duty will be limited to 12 months. Until now, mobilizations have ranged from 16 to 24 months, although time inside Iraq is usually limited to 12 months.

Separately, as part of President George W. Bush's plan for boosting U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a brigade of National Guard soldiers will have its yearlong tour in Iraq extended by 125 days, to July, and a Patriot missile battalion will be sent to the Gulf next month, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

National Guard troops are citizen soldiers who train part-time throughout the year but can be mobilized for combat.

Maj. Randy Taylor, a spokesman for the 3rd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, at Fort Bliss, Texas, said that a Patriot unit has been ordered to deploy to the Gulf region but he would not identify the specific country or the specific date in February, citing security concerns. He was unable to say how many soldiers will deploy with the Patriot missiles. The last time the unit deployed to the Gulf was in 2003, Taylor said.

The Marines announced that two infantry units - the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, and the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment - will stay in Iraq 60 to 90 days longer than scheduled. That will enable the Marines to have a total of eight infantry battalions in western Anbar province instead of the current six, by February. Once the 60 to 90 day extension is over, another two battalions will be sent in early from their U.S. bases.

Also, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which combines infantry with a helicopter squadron and a logistics battalion, totaling about 2,200 Marines, will stay in Anbar for another 45 days.

Those extensions conform with Bush's announcement Wednesday evening that he was ordering 4,000 more Marines to Anbar.

The military tries to avoid extending combat tours and sending forces earlier than planned because it disrupts the lives of troops and their families and makes it harder for the services to get all troops through the education and training programs they need for promotions. But in this case it was deemed unavoidable.

Richard Myers, the retired Air Force general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when the Iraq war began, said in a telephone interview that he believes Bush's decision to add 20,000 troops in Iraq was based on calculations by military commanders on how many extra troops are needed to accomplish their mission.

"The key is: Can the prime minister deliver on those things he has promised to deliver on," Myers said, referring to Nouri al-Maliki's pledge not to shield Shiite militias from raids by Iraqi and American forces.

Gates said the "planning objective" for the Guard and the Reserve will remain five years between each mobilization, but because of the demands of war an undisclosed number of units will be called up more frequently. "Our intention is that such exceptions be temporary," Gates said. He did not say which units would be remobilized.

An internal Army document obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday said that without more frequent use of Guard and Reserve forces through remobilization of units that already have served in Iraq, "we will break" the active-duty Army.

Appearing with Gates at the news conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the decision to recall Guard and Reserve units was contemplated even before Bush decided to increase U.S. forces in Iraq. Even at the existing level of forces in Iraq, the Army was unable to sustain for much longer its troop rotations with the active-duty force alone.

Speaking just hours after Bush announced that 21,500 more troops will be sent to Iraq in coming months, Gates said he was recommending to Bush that the Army's troop strength be increased by 65,000 soldiers, to a total of 547,000 worldwide. Almost half of that increase already has been achieved under a temporary program that Gates said would be made permanent; the full increase is to be achieved within five years.

There is not enough political will in America to
do what is required for this. A righteous mission or The draft.

Until the nation finds that will, sh*t-can the idea.

Until the nation finds the guts to demand rightousness
in mission, there will not be a full volunteer army.

The American people have always responded in a positive way, when the threat was real. Millions volunteered after Dec, 7th 1941, the threat was real not theoretical. When 19 Arabs attacked us the American people were eager to make the guilty pay, we rightfully attacked their bases in Afghanistan. Then we fell for an insane presidents ideology, we became the Christian soldiers who have been missing since medieval times, trying to change the religious ideals of the middle east. It can’t get any more insane than that.

GWB won't be around to make messes to clean up long enough to require increasing the size of the Military. We have sufficient resources to contain the damage and reverse the course of action. Congress should pass a War Appropriations Bill which funds a program for the Executive Branch to negotiate a cease fire with all elements in
Iraq and operate as an Honest Broker for all stake holders until this role can be handed over to an International
Organization and security guaranteed by NATO.

As a constitutionally democratic nation, we won't need a surge or a larger military when we stop doing so many wrong
things and start doing more right things because we won't need as much protection. Why don't we, as a group, construct a list of things to stop and things to start in order to bring about such a paridigm shift in the country;s
direction?

Negociate with who for what? You are making a few novice assumptions here. First to be a negociation you must have a clearly defined organizations.... to negociate with. There are no Reb's and Blue coats here.... just varying degrees of chaos, village, tribal, ethnic, religious and political leaders.... kind of like looking for the sides of a ball.

As far as appointing an International Organization..... seems any government that wanted to play a role is already here and NATO has its hands full with Afghanistan.

You are right about one thing... This issue will out live the current administration and probably the next.

Start by ---- Stop buying goods that produced through unethical labor and environmental practices; -- I'll guess 95% of the merchandise that you have on the shelf in YOUR favorite BOX store.

or if we just stop being so successful then no one would bother with us. easy

What a sad statement your making here. After a period longer than the total time we were involved in World War Two, and this is the best result we can find, these consequences described here by you. Why would any sane person want to continue spending lives and money on this kind of an outcome?

It is sad.... but what is the alternative?

Many smart people are saying for us to withdraw our troops out of the center of the area of conflict. Either out into the desert, or to Kuwait and Afghanistan. Then we let them have their civil war. When it’s done, we help the survivors get their broken country back together.
The original plan was a good one, we load up Afghanistan and we reach out and touch any middle eastern nation we want from bases there.

Tell me something Vaughn. On 10 September, 2001 if you look at any assessment of threats to American interests in the Middle East Saddam Hussien's Iraq topped the list. It made that list because in 1998 he kicked out the weapons inspectors and just about everyone over the age of 12 believed Saddam Hussien kicked them out so he could go about ressurecting his WMD programs.

We alll know what happened on 9/11 so we don't need to go into that.

Do you suspose that because 9/11 occurred that all those previously conceived concerns about Iraq simply evaporated into thin air?

I had been concerned about Saddam for many years. However, although there was a good possibility Saddam kicked out inspectors in 1998 because he had intentions of resurrecting his WMD program, there was also the possibility he was merely exercising political "muscle". That's why inspections should have been allowed to continue and when they found no WMD there still should have been conditions put on Saddam for continued unrestricted inspections with the knowledge that the U.S. would see invasion as an option if he didn't comply. Was Saddam a huge PITA with his game playing? Yes, certainly. Should we have invaded Iraq because he was a huge PITA? No. Only my opinion, of course.

Survivors of that battle would most likely not want the help from hands that abandon them in their time of greatest need. It's not quite as easy as turning off the water from the spicket. I question how "smart" that decsion would be. I personally think its just as big a mistake as going to war in the first place was. Two wrongs do not make things right.

While things are sad and very difficult I believe that we owe it to the Iraqis to give the them one more chance.

And on that I'm sure we agree that we disagree.

Not necessarily so. Compare this to any civil war; civil warriors don’t care for outsiders who are trying to assign power. It is complex due to our creating the circumstance that initiated the civil strife in the beginning. At the same time we can not pick sides and work towards any logical conclusions without pissing off somebody, who should that be? The one more chance has to be all Iraqi, win lose or draw we can not be the decider in this or any civil war. If it has to be all Iraqi, then where should our people be in the interim?
We are all American, disagreeing is part of the territory we all love and live in.

I listened to Lila Garretts "Connect the Dots" on Pacifica Radio. She interview a military person who said that all the requirements for recruitment have been DROPPED BIG TIME. HS degree, tattoos, and get this - - - if you join up, as a non-citizen - - - you can apply for citizenship ONE DAY after you enlist. You can even be OBESE - - - as long as you agree to join a fitness program!!!

Oh, theres a $40,000 "signing bonus" which is more than a lot of GI families make in a year.

Viva los mercenarios.

The way I hear it, the "Crips", "Bloods" and the "13th street gang" are well represented in all the services. I've seen their tags painted on walls around Bagdad in the background on news coverage.

Maybe you can share those photos Vaughn.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/...rs-in-iraq.html
this site loaded slow, quality photos of gang tags in Iraq

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable
more info on gangs in military

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104...mp;archive=true
FBI says U.S. criminal gangs are using military to spread their reach

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0711/p02s01-usmi.html
lower its standards, letting in less-qualified recruits as well as gang members and extremists.

http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/1995/072795cpblmil.html
LA street gangs infiltrate US army: The Crips
and the Bloods have been. uncovered within
the US military,

I see Vaughn, that is a terrible problem.

Are you having trouble believing the military is now home to the homies?
Back when this stupid war started, many of us were half heartedly talking about sending the gang bangers to do the whole job, and leave the US military out of it. That might not have been such a dumb thing to do eh. Could the effort be any worse off than it is now? There is no insurgency in the hood along South Central is there?

Oh Vaughn, I don't doubt it but I know what will happen to them if they start practising gang activity.

Besides, I've known a good number of young men and women who have used the military as an escape from a dead end life as a civilian. As long as they behave themselves I wonder why you begrudge them the opportunity to make a better life for themselves from serving in the armed services.

This was brought to my attention by my nephew who is in Baghdad. His comments were describing an intense and escalating level of tagging of both civilian and military property. In his opinion he believes the situation is growing and it should be contained before it grows out of control. Another thing is turf rights, which it seems there is some squabble as how to prevent the spread of uncomplimentary activity being performed by people wearing American uniforms. I’m sure you and I would agree, when a person wears the uniform they should distinguish themselves in a proper military manner.
I wouldn’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to use the military to better their lives. But I would not approve of these folks using the same opportunity to forward their gang activities.

Slugs and Thugs have always been present. They go one of two ways when they enter... They get their act together and straighten out or they get themselves booted out. The old saying -- Go to war or go to jail... isn't new.

I'd pay very little creedance to the tags that you find around as validating the rise or fall of gangs in the military.

Try reading something from somebody who is there Vaughn.

From: Bryant Shurley <mailto:batmanvshomer@yahoo.com>
Subject: My view of Iraq


Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let youl know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.

I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Shieks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.

There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.

But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its the politicians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.

When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so. But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his cty, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in becuase the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.

So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.

So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation.

The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the words that came out of the elder's mouth:

"We do not want America here, and America does not want to be here. But you cannot leave because the militias controll the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."

What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community, is that Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.

If we leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but its better than American civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.

Feel free to share this with whomever wants a real soldier's opinion about the war.


SPC "Doc" Shurley
2/5 Cav, 1st CB

Better let "Doc" know that Kurds are for the most part not Christian... some follow Shia, some follow Sunni. But most of them would agree that they are Kurds first, so are less likely to get caught up in the religious killings. The Asseryians and Chaldeons are ethic groups that are predominately Christian.

I gotta agree with him on this point: while most Iraqis would prefer not to have American GI's in their country .. compared with the alternative it's a necessary evil.

I noticed that too 1st Sgt but he's a young fellow and probably been told that by someone else who really didn't know that much either. You know how the calvary is, eh?