Iraq war will leave only two of Army's 10 divisions available

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/12/06/national1558EST0569.DTL

Only two of the U.S. Army's 10 active-duty divisions will be at full strength for any new conflict next year as battle-weary soldiers return from Iraq, military officials say.

The four Army divisions currently serving in Iraq will need about six months to rest, retrain and repair equipment when they return from Iraq early next year. With three divisions set to rotate into Iraq and another into Afghanistan as replacements, about 80 percent of the Army's fighting strength will be either on the mend or on duty fighting terror and stabilizing the two countries.

One of the two remaining divisions, the 3rd Infantry, is just back from Iraq and not yet up to full capacity.

Army officials acknowledge the force is stretched but say the drop in readiness will not leave America vulnerable should a new fight arise with an adversary such as North Korea. Troops from the National Guard, reserves and the other military services are capable of joining any fight, and the recovering soldiers could be quickly reactivated if they are needed, officials say.

<snip>

Bush: Keeping America safe from terrorists,



And vulnerable to everything else.



Ka-ching!

The "ready for duty" business is largely bullshit, because it mainly indicates that a unit hasn't undergone the required amount of training. Well of course the 4th Infantry and the 101st and friends haven't gotten any official training, because they've been fighting in Iraq, which is probably a lot more useful than anything they could learn in an exercise.

Bush used the same falacy in the 2000 election, when he said that two divisions that had been stuck peacekeeping in Bosnia and Kosovo were not ready for duty. Well, they also hadn't had a chance to have official training, but they were hardly unprepared for war.

The more serious issue here is that more than half of our army is tied down in Iraq, so if a situation were to emerge with Syria or Iran or North Korea or Belgium or whomever, we'd have a lot fewer forces to deal with them than we'd like. The obvious solution is to increase the size of our armed forces, spending more on men and less on contractors' new gadgets.

But that sure as hell isn't going to happen while this Administration is in power. Billions for General Dynamics, and not one cent for enlistment.

Cash is King

It's a smokescreen excuse for the real reason these troops won't be ready for 6 months. Not only have we maxed out our troops, but all the equipment is taking a beating and no longer reliable for prime time. Also, we wsed up lot's of smart bombs & stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan and are a little sort on those million dollar guided missiles at the moment.



"We've got great soldiers, and they can go right back into a conflict, but they've got to retrain," Kim Waldron, a spokeswoman for Army Forces Command in Atlanta, said Saturday.

The Army's 4th Infantry, 101st Airborne, 1st Armored and 82nd Airborne division are to leave Iraq by next May. When those troops return, they will need at least six months to rest, resume training and repair helicopters, tanks, Humvees and other gear that has been pushed to or past the breaking point in Iraq's harsh desert environment.

All I've seen from Iraq is that we are fighting pretty much everyday people who are trying desperately to drive a foreign invader from their land (again)

Bush, you stupid shit-head, we are not fools. WHen you shoot at a soldier in an occupying invasion force, it is NOT TERRORISM!!!

Fuck you George W Bush. I wish I was a Christian so that I'd have the comfort of knowing you will burn in Hell

:grr:

weren't expected to be combat ready.

The worm turns...

That is why N.Korea wants them so bad. The only thing keeping us from liberating N.Korea like we did Iraq is their million man army. After N.Korea tests their first nuke, which I predict will be very soon, expect their economy to improve exponentially as their need to maintain a huge army decreases.

Don

Without transportion, fuel, and modern aircraft and armaments what can they do? They might burn Seoul and that is their deterrent. That is enough for the South to act as their ally in curbing American belligerence.

The northern government is very frail and not long for this world. The S.Koreans and the Chinese need to make some arrangements for its eventual collapse which will not require a war. Such arrangements would leave the American alliance system in Northeast Asia in shambles. This is why the old American North Korean bombast must go on. The neocons know the other side of this so called "nuclear" crisis is the ejection of American forces from Korea. Opening up commerce with the North would result in the North's collapse or absorption more effectively than by war. This is why neocons so adamantly oppose commercial arrangements with the North. The N.Korean government could only survive a war if the Chinese desired that. It is the Chinese conventional and nuclear umbrella that protects N.Korea not anything that Kim is doing. The entire peninsula is inexorably slipping into the Chinese sphere of influence and the neocon administration is oblivious to that reality. The tension of war bolsters the decreased political relevance of the DMZ.

At this point I think the ideal from the Chinese viewpoint would be unification on the peninsula with the S.Korean govenment in charge, total withdrawal of American forces and bases from the Korean peninsula except maybe for port visits and arms sales. The final part of this arangement would be a timetable for phased integration of some sort with Taiwan. Japan would get quiet reassurances and trade benefits. The Japanese would be pushed ever closer to the American security umbrella.

What? They not in production yet?

Never mind.....................

"the S.Koreans and the Chinese need to make some arrangements for its eventual collapse which will not require a war"

the 'sunshine policy' was working very well till the neoCONs took over.

'The Japanese would be pushed ever closer to the American security umbrella.'

how much closer can japan get to the 'American security umbrella'?

unfortunately n. korea is only a pawn on the grand chessboard and likely to be SACRIFICED, as has been it's role for decades, to make a point... or two.

with the neoCONs at the helm theres really no telling what might happen.

peace

Thanks for pointing this out. It is just a matter of degree. Your comment is well taken. It may be a distinction without a difference. An elimination of the American military position on the peninsula due to unification will make them more nervous in security terms.

With unification, Japan will become its own frontline, losing the American provided buffer state.

N. Korea and S. Korea could be sacrified to neocon hubris and ignorance. This is what worries reasonable observers. They might do anything to prevent the loss of S. Korea as a vassal state. There is the very real unique possibiltiy of a sovereign unified modern Korean state emerging on the peninsula. The long term ramifications of this outcome, which are usually not discussed, motivate the destructive neocon policies. It is also behind their desire to re-establish the American military presence in the Philippines.

Ulitimately, the N. Korean government could not survive a war with the combined forces of the US and S.Korea without Chinese military intervention. No food, no fuel equals no fight. The first winter would force die hards across the border to China. The fact there is a large modern S. Korean Army and government willing to absorb N. Korea makes a big difference. However, I believe it is likely that China would intervene militarily if we choose to resolve any issues by force.

I've always been a sunshine policy advocate. At least since the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. The possibility of war again in Korea makes me sick. This is why I feel compelled to post about it.

"Son et son jap go, byawk ul naw ma saw."