Top General: Army Near Breaking Point

Chief Of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker Says Army 'Will Break' Without Thousands More Troops

(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.

[frankly6]

janish

Our military has been misused in Iraq. Has the Bush administration not been able to figure out that an operation of this size cannot and will not be successfuly carried out by putting so much of the burden on national guard forces? Bush and co. didn't enact a draft and didn't send in a larger force in the beginning for political reasons not strategicly sound reasons. This mis-use and abuse of the military is what's breaking it.

[randalds]

I don't need to support or not support any of your options or indeed any of Albright's. I believe the blockade (including our no fly zone) was doing it's job and would have gone to the UN for a renewal of them when they came due. I disagree that regime change was necessary at the time when Clinton said it was needed and also when Bush launched his insanity in the region. Oh and our planes being attacked amounted to them shooting peashooters and snapping rubber bands at our planes. Certainly it was cheaper to spend millions talking then the 100's of billions we have spent on this war of choice and I suppose you'd like to argue that they are not now using our presence there as a recruiting tool?

[frankly6]

Clearly, to any objective person, Iraq, the middle east, and the world are less safe and less stable because of this boondogle.

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

[frankly6]

janish

I agree that we let the military become a little too weak and too small but I think that most of the current problem is not size or strength but how it's been utilized.

[janish64]

oh - you may want to read ALL of her statements because she is on record saying she is prepared to use military force.

But let's say she doesn't state this. Would that mean you prefer millions of dollars spent on PHONY diplomacy, while our planes are being attacked as we "pretend" to enforce the nofly zone, and bogus sanctions, and as a side dish, Islamic Terrorist groups use our presence, AND the sanctions as an anti-US recruiting tool?

You must support option B, if you reject the military actions used to remove the regime, because there IS no option C. Even if we broke our own rules and assasinated him, we would still be occupying the country.

So - which is it? Option A or Option B?
I think I already know the answer.

[janish64]

franlky6 - Don't confuse me with a blind Bush supporter, by the way. I'm talking about historical cuts, based on old *** opinions. People with a lot of experience were warning, back in the 90s, that we were going to be fighting new types of wars, and we should not just close up shop because of the fall of the Soviet Union. Guerilla warfare was growing in the ME, and door to door combat of a new era was on the horizon, as was extended stays as we rebuilt countries. Bush the first should have finished the job in Iraq, but would have had to do so against the world opinion. He folded to the UN. Unfortunately that left his son having to use gonads to do it. His son ran against "nation building" (why, I don't know) but had his head quickly pulled out of his arse after 9/11. Anyone who thinks Iraq was not a pivotal point in this global war has a VERY short reading list. The bottom line - there has been a long history of gaps and oversights in military planning as it aligns with foreign policy. One good thing coming out of the 2 wars in the middle east is more attention to voices on the ground, and the boots on the ground are more involved in the foreign policies.

[janish64]

read on, frankly - the post Soviet cuts recommended by Bush were reassessed, and continued to grow, as of 1997 they were still trying to cut regular forces back to guard/reserve status. It was CLINTON'S BUR, and subsequent cuts AFTER Aspin left (he was still a little conservative on the numbers compared to Perry) which resulted in big overhauls. Remember, Clinton ran on the promise to overhaul the military. If the Bush cuts were a bad idea, why didn't he stop them with his new plan? That was his job, right?

[randalds]

The statements make perfect sense to me, but no where in them does she advocate an invasion to force democracy on Iraq.

[frankly6]

George W. Bush, while running for his first term as president, asserted that US military deployments are %u201Ctoo often open-ended and lacking in clear objectives.%u201D Bush advisor Condoleeza Rice has criticized the Clinton Administration for using the US military as a %u201Cglobal police force.%u201D

QUESTION:

Bush has clearly dug us into a huge hole in Iraq. Should we give him a bigger shovel or a ladder?

[randalds]

Bravo frankly6 and thank you for taking the time to look that up. I love it when they have to face the truth, though they never admit it.