Is The Army At The Breaking Point?

Combat Tours In Iraq Lengthened By 45-60 Days For Nearly 4,000 Soldiers

(CBS/AP)  The Army is stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it is again extending the combat tours of thousands of soldiers beyond the promised 12 months — the second such move since August.

A brigade of the 1st Armored Division – about 3,800 troops – is having its one-year tour of duty extended by 45 to 60 days, reported CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. That will allow the 3rd Infantry Division to have a full year at home before going back to Iraq.

Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division had been expecting to return to their home base in Friedberg, Germany, in early January. Instead, they will stay in Iraq at least until late February, several officials said Monday. The soldiers are operating in western Anbar province, one of the most violent and dangerous parts of Iraq.

"The Army is coming to the end of its rope in Iraq," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a private research group. "It simply does not have enough active-duty military personnel to sustain the current level of effort."

Of the 142,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, nearly 120,000 are Army soldiers. The tour extension affects between 3,500 and 4,000 soldiers in the brigade, officials said.

The Army's original goal was to give soldiers two years at home for every year in Iraq, reports Martin. It first slipped to 18 months at home, and now it's just 14 months between tours.

Last month, the Army's 172nd Stryker Brigade was ordered to extend its tour in Iraq by up to four months. Some members of that unit had already returned to the brigade's home base in Alaska when the decision was announced. About 300 soldiers had to go back to Iraq, drawing public complaints from some families.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hinted at other adjustments to the troop-rotation plan.

"We're also bringing some other units in earlier, which is another way of dealing with that issue" of how to keep a sufficient number of troops in Iraq with a limited number of combat brigades available, Rumsfeld said.

The extension reflects a dilemma for Army leaders: either keep one group of soldiers in Iraq longer than promised, or replace them with another group that has not yet had its minimum 12 months at home between combat tours. Either choice risks upsetting some soldiers and their families. And the fact that the choice cannot be avoided is a sign that troop rotations in Iraq are squeezing the Army from several directions.

But the Army is also running short of money, reports Martin. It will need $66 billion over the next several years just to repair or replace all the equipment torn up in Iraq.

Some members of Congress are expressing concern that the military is over-stretched by the war. On Monday, Sen. Arlen Specter, said the situation in Iraq is "disintegrating" into a civil war. "My instinct is once the (November) election is over there will be a lot more hard thinking about what to do about Iraq and a lot more candid observations about it."

In more bad news for the Defense Department, a group of retired military officers on Monday bluntly accused Rumsfeld of bungling the war in Iraq, saying U.S. troops were sent to fight without the best equipment and that critical facts were hidden from the public.

"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste said in remarks prepared for a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.

A second military leader, retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically. ..."

"Mr. Rumsfeld and his immediate team must be replaced or we will see two more years of extraordinarily bad decision-making," he added at the policy forum, held six weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections in which the war is a central issue.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed the Democratic-sponsored event as "an election-year smokescreen aimed at obscuring the Democrats' dismal record on national security."

"Today's stunt may rile up the liberal base, but it won't kill a single terrorist or prevent a single attack," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement. He called Rumsfeld an "excellent secretary of defense."

[drgoodwin12]

Yes they did take alot of money thgdriver but that doe's not mean you cannot help. You can vote democrat,you can campaign for one as simple as places their signs in your yard or writing editorals to your local papers.You can go a step further an attend council meetings prepared with a well written statements,facts to back them up,maybe the council will not care for whatyou ahve to say but some of the audience may.Do not give up and never surrender to the worst president ever in this country history . Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Bush and the republicanslook more like the the Russian KGB

[johnbrownjr1]

Look back into the history of our Armed Forces...this is the first time that so many retired Generals have gone public of the Sec of Defense and the Commander in Chief. My own father who proudly served 23 years in the Army has stated that Donald Rumsfeld is wrecking the military. And that comes from a man who served two tours in Vietnam.....makes you wonder about all parts of this administration

[thgdriver]

Your wasting your time bouncing posts all over this site and others for donations to the DNC, I can not help, no one else can either.

EXXON and BP got all our money months ago.


God Bless President Bush and the USA.

[three-o-six]

What amazes me -- all the experts -- none of ther are in the army right now.

[whatithink-2009]

When the GOP said they loved our troops to death, I don't think anyone could have known that they meant that literally.

[drgoodwin12]

It is all Bush and the Republican partys fault so get out and vote and For everyone that is against Bush because he deliberately mislead us into war in Iraq,go online and contribute $10,25 or any amount of money you can afford to the Democratic Party and do so before the elections.There are good republican senators like Specter and Warner however in order for this country to change course we have to change it's leadership first.It's crunch time for the elections and in order to restore this country we need new leadership in the house and senate.

[teddebare]

How smart is the american public, especially those in the red states, that fell in line behind Junebug and Chaney to lead this trumped up war and neither of them served -- trully served?

One who has seen the battle does not take it so lightly to go back or call for war. The two boy scouts were elected by the reds... I wonder what the enlistment ratios is for those states?

Just asking.

[drgoodwin12]

For everyone that is against Bush because he deliberately mislead us into war in Iraq,go online and contribute $10,25 or any amount of money you can afford to the Democratic Party and do so before the elections.There are good republican senators like Specter and Warner however in order for this country to change course we have to change it's leadership first.It's crunch time for the elections and in order to restore this country we need new leadership in the house and senate.

[techwriter8]

Oh no, I never said, nor did I ever imply, that we should blame Bush for everything. Quite the contrary. There is plenty wrong that the blame can be distributed to lots of different people, of both political parties. My point in naming those other presidents is to highlight the fallacy of your argument.

Consider this: Since Sept. 12, 2001, no one else has hijacked 4 planes and crashed 2 of them into the World Trade Center. Painfully obvious, but a true statement nonetheless. However, prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that statement is equally true.

I agree that he is forced to deal with a situation unlike any other in our history, and I do hope that history will consider that when analyzing his job as the Chief Executive. However, in the aftermath of that tragic day, he has stubbornly refused to consider that there may be alternative ways of doing things that he hadn%u2019t considered. He has cloaked his administration in a veil of secrecy, and surrounded himself with people who are loyal to a fault. While loyalty is not a bad thing, blindly embracing someone%u2019s own ideology is potentially dangerous. Take Don Rumsfeld, who commented once, %u201CNeedless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said.%u201D We don%u2019t need folks in power that can%u2019t or won%u2019t reach their own conclusions. I am not alone when I say that I have a hard time believing what the President says. And, for the record, I am not a Democrat, and I did vote for Bush in 2000.

[gslinger3]

techwriter8
And as to #5, how many terrorist attacks were there against the US during the Nixon Administration? How about the Carter years? Reagan? What about Woodrow Wilson%u2019s presidency?

Here we go, Blame Bush for all our troubles!!! It%u2019s the same old story Blame Blame and more blame, but nobody seems to offer better solutions. Bush has more on him than any sitting president could ever ask for, and frankly I admire the man for how he has handled it, we asked for him kill terrorists, and he is doing it with our military%u2019s help daily. I support our troops and our president in this time of conflict, no left wing conspiracy theory can weaken my determination to do so.

We do live in a free country not to be able to do so, and now the Iraqi people can say the same. Of course you never hear that on the mainstream media now do you?

[gwb4pres2000]

I am thinking about running for president one day. Here's my plan: I am going to use my family's influence to get into an ivy league college and "C" my way out. Then to avoid going into an unpopular war I will pretend to defend our nation in the National Guard while ensuring I will never be deployed and still make business contacts. Then I will run a few companies into the ground. I should be ready after all that training. If you share a few beers with me I will even get you a government job.

1. Iraq and Iran have hated each other for a long time. They spent years trying to wipe each other off the face of the earth. Thanks to us, Iran wins.

2. After the 1st Gulf War, Saddam used chemecial weapons on the people WE encouraged to overthrow him. We then left them to their fate without any (military or otherwise) support. They died.

3. Saddam was a "paper tiger". If there had been WMD's found, we would have surely heard about it?

4. Our policy makers have only heard or read what they wanted to hear or read.

5. My government has lied and lied and lied to me. I am ashamed of them.

4. I was a very young civilian working for the army the last few years of Vietnam. My job was part of a normalization effort by some of the command to help troops "civilianize" before they went back to their families. Some made it, some didn't. Some troops never "came home". The human wreckage was staggering - for our whole generation, and it will be again.

[truthteller2]

As Paul Begala said this morning, finally the American people are beginning to realize the naked truth about the Bush Administration, which is, "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Hooray for some of our former military leaders for finally stepping up to the plate and telling the truth! By trying to frame the issue as a choice between "cut and run" and "stay the course", the "Liepublicans" are trying to avoid discussing the results of their incompetent and deliberately deceitful leadership . Truthfully, the current policy choice is to just "keep on digging". When in a hole, isn't the first step to find a way out to just stop digging?

[techwriter8]

Gslinger, I%u2019ll agree that your questions are %u201Ccommon%u201D as they are generally used by right-wing pundits, but I believe %u201Cspeculation%u201D would be a better description than %u201Csense%u201D. For example:

1. What would be the ultimate weapon for the terrorists in this war? Answer: Nuclear Weapons. (Aren%u2019t these the ultimate weapons for anyone?)

2. If Saddam Hussein (A terror Supporting Dictator) were still in power, would he be seeking Nuclear Weapons? Answer: YES! (Quite probably, but still speculation)

3. Will Saddam (a terrorist supporting Dictator) ever have nuclear weapons? No (Speculative based on his never regaining power)

4. Will Iran ever have nuclear weapons? Answer: Not under GWB's watch. (He would hope, but again, you are speculating)

5. Has there been a terrorist attack on US soil since 911 under GWB's watch. Answer: NO (Actually, there was one a few weeks ago in Damascus Syria, at the Embassy (In case you%u2019d forgotten, embassies are the sovereign territory of the nation they represent))

6. Will Osama Bin Laden live to see the end of this Decade? Answer: NO. (We%u2019ve been hunting him for 5 years with no success, so why not another four? Speculation)

And as to #5, how many terrorist attacks were there against the US during the Nixon Administration? How about the Carter years? Reagan? What about Woodrow Wilson%u2019s presidency?

[cathaleen]

The people who are the most stressed and stretched are the families and the soldiers that finished their tour of duty, thought they would be coming home and now must stay in these hell holes longer. Now that's being stretched.

[gslinger3]

techwriter8
My quiz was simply based on common sense. It does not take a political or gonvernmental analysis to answer what questions were posed. Everyone knows that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, he used them on his own people as proof. Due to the fact that Iran is now talking nukes doesnt it make sense that Saddam would be in a nuclear arms race at this very moment if he were in power. Weather or not he would the FACT is he now can't and NEVER WILL! I see nothing misguided about that simple logic.

[brushtail22]

Send in more Guard and Reservesists. That's what they're being paid for. I know one personally who was supposed to be deployed for a year and the orders were cancelled for half of her group, including her. Sure was looking forward to bidding her farewell!!!

[techwriter8]

The quality of our military as an entity is not in question, nor is their bravery, heroism, and will to accomplish their mission. The simple fact is that they are being stretched too thin, and so many deployments are bound to take their toll on equipment, quality of training, and morale.

As was correctly pointed out by ianw32, the "downsizing" (call it what it was) had an impact on the current status of our armed forces. Even in the mid-90s, this was evident to those of us in service. My unit had to turn-in M1A1 tanks in order to receive newer M1A2 tanks, but 1/2 the battalion was deployed, making the turn-in process twice as difficult because each company had to turn-in two companies worth of tanks.

Gslinger3's quiz is certainly misguided. Unless he has a crystal ball or some other device for predicting the future, many of the answers given are not certainties.

While Saddam was undeniably a bad guy, our actions to depose him were unprecedented in American military history. We have responded to direct attacks (Japan in WW2), and have been drawn into conflicts in order to assist our allies (Germany in WW1 and WW2), and we have sided with allies when civil war broke out in their countries (Korea and Vietnam), but we have never initiated a first strike against another nation, at least until now.

Does anyone else have a problem with this? That we have forsaken our role as peace-loving neighbor and assumed the role of neighborhood bully?

[clestes-2009]

How does the army being at the breaking point due to the bungling of Rumsfeld translate into "obscuring the Democrats' dismal record on national security"??

Sounds like to me the Republicans are grasping at straws to find something, anything so they can point their fingers at the Dems.

Lets face the facts. The current Republican administration has made a hugh mess out of Iraq, Afganistan, the current state of the military and just about everything else. And elections are approaching.

This is going to be a good show.

[perception5]

Wow! It's the beginning of a blitzkreig by the DEMS and their pals in our "free left-wing press". I would expect more phony stories and doctored photos from this group that is once again trying to lie their way to power in November.