Army Won't Shorten Combat Tours
Associated Press
October 27, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Army will not shorten combat tours in Iraq next year from 12 months to six or nine months, as some had hoped, because that would undermine the war effort, the Army's top general said Tuesday.
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a group of reporters that he would prefer shorter combat tours in Iraq but believes that cannot happen as long as the U.S. military is required to maintain roughly the 135,000 troops there now to fight the insurgency.
The Army and Marine Corps are preparing to maintain that level at least through the end of next year. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that if U.S.-trained and equipped Iraqi security forces become available in larger numbers next year, as expected, then U.S. troops levels may be reduced.
On a related matter, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, said the Army has not been asked to accelerate the deployment of a fresh rotation of troops into Iraq. These include four brigades of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to go there in January.
Some have cited the possibility of getting some parts of the 3rd Infantry to Iraq sooner to bolster the force in the final weeks before Iraq holds elections in late January.
"He hasn't asked for that," Cody said, referring to Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. If asked, the Army could speed up some of the deployments, Cody said.
The 3rd Infantry, which spearheaded the drive to Baghdad in March and April 2003, has been reorganizing this year and will be the first division to make a return deployment to Iraq.
When the war began in March 2003 there was little debate about the length of combat tours in Iraq because the Pentagon did not expect to keep large numbers of troops there for more than a few months after the fall of Baghdad, which occurred in April. By that summer, however, the 12-month rule was adopted for both active-duty and reserve units, and a few units have been ordered to stay even longer.
Schoomaker and Cody cited several drawbacks to shortening combat tours under current circumstances, which include an insurgency that continues to adapt its tactics of killing coalition and Iraqi forces.
Among them:
- The fight against the insurgents will be more effective if there is not a frequent turnover of American troops, in part because on-the-ground experience pays dividends in understanding the enemy.
- The effort to integrate U.S.-trained Iraqi forces into American fighting units in coming months will be more successful if they spend longer periods operating together.
- National Guard and Reserve forces have to put in the same amount of pre-deployment training and preparation for going to Iraq regardless of whether they stay for six months or 12 months. Thus shorter tours would mean mobilizing and training more Guard and Reserve units, if the overall force requirement remains the same.
"You also have the dilemma of the operational commanders over there who say, you know, if you go to six months (tours) you're only going to get about four months' use out of the force," because of the time it takes to get fully geared up for operations once arriving in Iraq, Schoomaker said.
"That means you're going to have constant handover of contacts with the local populace, which is exactly what you don't want to do in an insurgency," he added. "You want that continuity" that comes with longer tours.
What do YOU think?
Associated Press
October 27, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Army will not shorten combat tours in Iraq next year from 12 months to six or nine months, as some had hoped, because that would undermine the war effort, the Army's top general said Tuesday.
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a group of reporters that he would prefer shorter combat tours in Iraq but believes that cannot happen as long as the U.S. military is required to maintain roughly the 135,000 troops there now to fight the insurgency.
The Army and Marine Corps are preparing to maintain that level at least through the end of next year. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that if U.S.-trained and equipped Iraqi security forces become available in larger numbers next year, as expected, then U.S. troops levels may be reduced.
On a related matter, the Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, said the Army has not been asked to accelerate the deployment of a fresh rotation of troops into Iraq. These include four brigades of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is scheduled to go there in January.
Some have cited the possibility of getting some parts of the 3rd Infantry to Iraq sooner to bolster the force in the final weeks before Iraq holds elections in late January.
"He hasn't asked for that," Cody said, referring to Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. If asked, the Army could speed up some of the deployments, Cody said.
The 3rd Infantry, which spearheaded the drive to Baghdad in March and April 2003, has been reorganizing this year and will be the first division to make a return deployment to Iraq.
When the war began in March 2003 there was little debate about the length of combat tours in Iraq because the Pentagon did not expect to keep large numbers of troops there for more than a few months after the fall of Baghdad, which occurred in April. By that summer, however, the 12-month rule was adopted for both active-duty and reserve units, and a few units have been ordered to stay even longer.
Schoomaker and Cody cited several drawbacks to shortening combat tours under current circumstances, which include an insurgency that continues to adapt its tactics of killing coalition and Iraqi forces.
Among them:
- The fight against the insurgents will be more effective if there is not a frequent turnover of American troops, in part because on-the-ground experience pays dividends in understanding the enemy.
- The effort to integrate U.S.-trained Iraqi forces into American fighting units in coming months will be more successful if they spend longer periods operating together.
- National Guard and Reserve forces have to put in the same amount of pre-deployment training and preparation for going to Iraq regardless of whether they stay for six months or 12 months. Thus shorter tours would mean mobilizing and training more Guard and Reserve units, if the overall force requirement remains the same.
"You also have the dilemma of the operational commanders over there who say, you know, if you go to six months (tours) you're only going to get about four months' use out of the force," because of the time it takes to get fully geared up for operations once arriving in Iraq, Schoomaker said.
"That means you're going to have constant handover of contacts with the local populace, which is exactly what you don't want to do in an insurgency," he added. "You want that continuity" that comes with longer tours.
What do YOU think?
