Top General: Army Near Breaking Point

(CBS/AP)  As President Bush weighed new strategies for Iraq, the Army's top general warned Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.

Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years.

Though he didn't give an exact number, he said it would take significant time and commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year.

But as CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports, increasing the size of the Army might not help any time soon. It would take a full year to recruit and train 6,000 new troops.

Officials also need greater authority to tap into the National Guard and Reserve, a force once set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces, Schoomaker told a commission studying possible changes in those two forces.

"Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand ... is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing.

"At his pace ... we will break the active component" unless reserves can be called up more to help, Schoomaker said.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Schoomaker said Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several options in Iraq, including shifting many troops from combat to training Iraqi units. Schoomaker said that while ground commanders assess their options, the military is more interested in getting the Iraqi security forces up to speed than sending more U.S. troops.

"Focus less on trainers," he said, and more on "how we generate Iraqi output."

The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq, if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat.

"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker told reporters. "And that purpose should be measurable."

Schoomaker's comments come as Mr. Bush reviews options for the foundering Iraq war, including suggestions he send more U.S. troops to the increasingly violent country and accelerate the training of Iraq's own security forces.

A senior military officer directly involved in the deliberations over the new strategy told Martin there "probably" will be a surge of U.S. troops into Iraq in an attempt to keep the lid on violence in Baghdad.

But he ruled out a massive buildup of combat forces, adding, "The Iraqis would never stand for that."

On Wednesday, Mr. Bush said he's "not going to be rushed" into a decision on a strategy change for Iraq.

Mr. Bush made it clear he will not map out a new war strategy until his new Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has taken over and offered his counsel. And that new plan, he said, will not include giving up.

"The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave to turn Iraq over to extremists who want to do the American people and the Iraqi people harm," Mr. Bush said after a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gates.

[randalds]

Give 'em hell mh4cbs1, while I don't support mutiny in the ranks, I do hope more young people wise up and refuse to join the military to serve in Bush's meat grinder folly in Iraq. Maybe the way to get this as*sholes attention is to take away his troops. He thinks of them as nothing more the plastic army men anyway. He isn't able to grasp that real human beings, on both sides, are being permanently maimed and killed. His pea-brain isn't up to the task of processing that truth.

[jnbrannon]

Politicians like John McCain are actually doing a disservice to our military by advocating more troops for Iraq. He is merely trying to "burnish" his "conservative" credentials with his "base" for 2008. An additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops are not going to make a difference now, and he and other politicians know it. When Gen. Shinseki advised Sec Def Rumsfeld prior to this war that a minimum of 250,000 troops would be needed, he was forced into "retirement". Why should additonal troops be asked to possibly die for a "mistake" that this president cannot admit to? Gen. Shinseki's 250,000 number was probably conservative, at best, it probably could not be done even with 500,000. We need a national debate in this country about our priorities in a dangerous world. If we as Americans feel "our security" is at risk, and we are now engaged in, as Sec Def Rumsfeld describes as: "The Long War" then we need to look at re-instituting the military draft to raise the numbers needed by our military, the Army and Marine Corps specifically. And, if we decide at the conclusion of that national debate, that bringing back the draft is something we do not want to do, then we should not now, and in the future do "wars of choice", unless we are prepared nationally to as President Kennedy said: "to pay any price, bear any burden, to insure the survival and success of liberty".
JB

[janish64]

to mh4cbs1:

Gofarkyourself. This is not an illegal war, and we don't need morons like yourself to advise us on shoelaces, let alone how to serve, and when.

[mh4cbs1]

To ALL US troops:

Don't go back to Iraq. Do your sworn duty to obey the constitution and stay home, just like West Point graduate officer Lt. Watada.

The Iraq War is an illegal invasion of a counrty that was NOT a threat. The Iraq War is Based on LIES that Bush, Cheney and gang knowingly pushed on the American sheeple. This War is based on the FEAR that Bush, Cheny and gang fostered by Exploiting our 9-11 tragedy.

This War is being fought by middleclass young men and women for the benefit of the super-wealthy NeoCon fascists. Do not let them use you as cannon fodder for their Wars for Power and Profit.


DO NOT GO BACK TO IRAQ.

Our presence is inciting the Insurgency. We can not babysit the Civil War that BUSH started. Bush War is a FAILURE. Bush War is a DISASTER. This Bush War is HIS Crime not yours. Make peace. Come home. We want you here at home. Bush wants to use and abuse you in Iraq.

Just say NO

[randalds]

Thanks, randalids - you have confirmed all of my suspicions - you are just a whiner with no ideas. You must be a politician.

Posted by janish64 at 07:18 PM : Dec 15, 2006

(yawn) Obviously janish you've mistaken me for someone who gives a fu*ck about your opinion on anything.

[janish64]

"It was ill-conceived,poorly planned and has been incompetently executed and managed"

Well shucks frankly6 - thanks for your vote of confidence. I'll pass it on.

[janish64]

err- I meant "And the other big mistake WAS a failure to.... snip

[janish64]

And the other big mistakes were a failure, on most of the West's part, to fully grasp the big battle. I fully encourage anyone who is genuinely interested in the ongoing conflicts in the region to read the late EG Ban's "The Constant Feud" - it is a very deep read, however covers the ongoing feuds in dimensions most of the country never thinks about. Until the West starts thinking on larger terms, (and I don't mean phony 'diplomacy', bogus sanctions, and the United Nations double standards) one side is going to completely destroy the other. Period.

[janish64]

Thanks, randalids - you have confirmed all of my suspicions - you are just a whiner with no ideas. You must be a politician.

[janish64]

The fact that we had too many reservists and not enough enlisted could NOT be a deterrent for the military actions. A draft would NEVER have been a good idea for this action, as it required fully integrating within Iraqi society, this is not a role for the unwilling. The BIG disaster was the eleventh hour Turkey pullout. That threw a lot of plans in the toilet, but the perfect war plan goes to pot when the first shots are fired anyway.