Archive for November, 2005

(Note: I began writing this at lunch on Wednesday but was interrupted and then managed to lose what little I had already done. So I’m going to try to recreate it today. I’ll try to keep the turkey gravy and from spilling into the post…)

This was the front page of WashingtionPost.com Wednesday just before noon:

You can click for a larger look, but the font used (the biggest on the page) probably makes that unnecessary. Three combat brigades may withdraw from Iraq. Good news, of course. But what does “three combat brigades” mean? The story, other than noting that there are currently about 18 brigades in Iraq, doesn’t say. It sure would be nice to see some meaningful numbers to go with that XX-Large headline.

If the “three brigades” number really means three brigades, then that’s 12,000 troops max, assuming about 4,000 per brigade. Brigade sizes vary widely, and even more so as the Army is shifting to a brigade-centric organization from a divisional organization. It all depends on how many non-organic supporting units are withdrawn as the number of troops in the field shrinks. 10,000 or so various supporting troops for 12,000 isn’t totally out of line, so this three brigade cut might get us back down to the pre-referendum level of about 138,000.

Which, if I may be so bold to point it out, has more or less been the plan all along.

The article does have some overall numbers:

Pentagon authorities also have set a series of “decision points” during 2006 to consider further force cuts that, under a “moderately optimistic” scenario, would drop the total number of troops from more than 150,000 now to fewer than 100,000, including 10 combat brigades, by the end of the year

That would make 10 combat brigades (40,000 troops max) and another 40,000 or more additional support personnel. This seems to fit in line with other numbers being tossed around lately (like 92,000), though whether it’s from a different source or merely repetition of earlier estimates isn’t clear.

The equivalent of another brigade’s worth of combat power was added this fall to bolster security for the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and the coming Dec. 15 vote on a new national government.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld spoke over the weekend of plans to bring the force level back down to 138,000 after the elections, effectively removing the extra brigade equivalent added for the election period.

In addition, officers said, two combat brigades that had been slated to move into Iraq to replace units coming out are now expected to be held back. One of those units — a brigade of the 1st Armored Division based in Germany — will probably be positioned in Kuwait. The other unit — a brigade of the 1st Infantry Division — will probably remain at its home base of Fort Riley, Kan., the officers said.

Neither of these last two divisions were on the list of units published by the DoD on November 7th (that is, weeks before Rep. Murtha started making noise). According to an AP article on the list, the 1st Infantry brigade had originally been slated to deploy before the December 15th elections but it was decided to hold them back until later. Despite this report, they were not on the list. The brigade from the 1st Armored wasn’t noted at all, though I’m reminded of this Stars & Stripes article I wanted to blog about but didn’t get to at the end of October. Only six combat brigades were on that list, though, so it’s hard to draw any conclusions. That’s why I’ve been cautioning against putting too much stock into that list and the 92,000 number. Others disagree, and I must admit as more information becomes available that I’m much more optimistic about the sub-100K number than I was previously.

This is the crux of the matter:

Military officers and defense officials have frequently described the challenge of deciding how many forces to keep in Iraq as a balancing act between trying to provide security and avoiding the appearance of an occupation force that may fuel insurgent violence and engender Iraqi dependence on U.S. assistance.

“The tension that the commanders feel between heavy presence and lower footprint is something they’re measuring all the time,” Lawrence T. Di Rita, the Pentagon’s primary spokesman, said yesterday.

The goal is a stable and secure Iraq. If that can be accomplished with zero US troops, so much the better. (Note: I believe that basing for significant US forces within Iraq is not only crucial to long-term success in the region but that it was a major factor behind the decision to invade. But we’re talking operations within Iraq here, not long-term strategic needs, so let’s leave that alone for the purposes of this discussion.) The fact is that if Iraqis can keep Iraq under control, there is no need for huge numbers of US troops.

To help gauge the particular impact that growth of Iraq’s security forces might have on the pace of a U.S. drawdown, military planners in Baghdad have devised a simple formula — what one general called a “rough rule of thumb.”

The formula estimates that for every three Iraqi battalions and one Iraqi brigade headquarters achieving a readiness rating of level two, a U.S. battalion can be dropped. A level two rating, on a scale of one to four, indicates that a unit is able to take the lead in operations but still requires some U.S. military support.

The withdrawal formula is a planning tool, several officers stressed, not a definitive predictor of how many U.S. forces are likely to leave, or when. [emphasis mine]

Who was it that said ‘Level 2′ was the important measuring stick, not ‘Level 1′? Back when so many in Legacy Media were having kittens over the fact that only one Iraqi battalion was rated ‘Level 1′? Oh, that’s right. It was me at the beginning of October:

As I said yesterday, the real key is getting Level 3 units up to Level 2. That’s the short- and mid-term priority. Level 1 is long-term for two primary reasons: a) It takes a long friggin’ time and b) The Iraqi army is fighting a defensive war on it’s own territory with support services readily available from Coalition forces.

Told you so.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while the units supporting US troops might be able to come home with the combat units, those that also support the Iraqi Level 2 and Level 3 units cannot until Iraqi logistics and rear-echelon systems come online. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

So while I’m cautiously optimistic that the sub-100K number is within reach, I’m not ready to start celebrating quite yet. And let’s not forget that this isn’t a new plan. This isn’t anything spurred on by the “discussion” started by Rep. Murtha or the Republicans. Murtha certainly knows of these plans, and I guess I’d hope that those reporting on troop levels know of these plans, so I’d welcome a little more honesty when covering and discussing them.

Troop levels will be coming down. Initially they’ll be going down to the pre-referendum levels, just like we were told would happen when they were increased. After that, they’ll be going down as progress is made. The speed of the decline depends on the circumstances. “As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” This has been the plan. The one that doesn’t exist.

HAH. Some of you apparently took me at face value when I wrote “I’ll probably post a bit later” yesterday. But I didn’t say how much later.

Ahem.

Murdoc wishes all his readers a fine Thanksgiving.

It’s snowing and blowing pretty good here, so I’m thankful we’re not headed anywhere today. I’ll probably post a bit later, but no guarantees.

If you’re traveling, be safe.

Meanwhile, the mission continues:

(Pic from Frontline Photos)

Keep our men and women in uniform, especially those deployed to the dangerous places of the world, in mind as we gather and celebrate.

Noted in the Strib:

Jack Blatherwick, the skating guru for generations of hockey players, has been writing columns for the Let’s Play Hockey newspaper for more than a decade.

In the Nov. 10 issue, Blatherwick’s column concerned a renewed interest in smaller, mobile defensemen because of the new NHL rules. Deeper in the publication, Blatherwick had another byline: at the top of a half-page ad decrying the Bush administration’s stand on torture.

“It seems our vice president won’t give up his campaign to allow the CIA to torture prisoners,” read Blatherwick’s opening sentence.

Dave McMahon, the newspaper’s editor, said: “Jack wanted to express this opinion, but he knew it wasn’t something for his hockey column. So he submitted the text as an ad and came in the next day with the check.”

Via a reader.

Singer rounds up guitars for Iraq troops

Charlie Daniels ROCKS:

Daniels responded to the need earlier this year by sending one of his own, then asked guitar manufacturers to follow his example.

“Only one company that will remain nameless turned us down. Everyone else has come onboard and been more generous than I would have thought. We never envisioned this much stuff. I’m overwhelmed by the support out there for the troops,” said Daniels

Gibson, in particular, deserves special mention.

Rock on.

UPDATE: Okay. The link has been corrected. Now you can rock on.

This subject came up today at lunch, so I did a little research. It seems that the calling cards purchased through the Army Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) are the way to go.

I don’t know that EVERY calling card will work from Iraq, but most probably will. The international rates are very high, though, for “regular” cards.

The cards purchased through AAFES, however, are a much better deal and will be sure to work for anyone with access to a phone. It’s a special deal through AT&T. They’ve set up a site for non-approved buyers (us civilians) to order cards through AAFES.

It appears that the rates are quite a bit better than just going out and buying a card in the store. A regular card used in Iraq is “10 units = .05″ while an AAFES card is “3 units = .07″. And the rate per minute with these cards is about half of the normal rate. If I’m doing the math right, it seems that a regular 550 Unit card is worth about six minutes of talk time while a 550 Unit AAFES card is worth about an hour. I’m sure your mileage may vary, though.

Here’s an FAQ about the deal: https://thor.aafes.com/scs/info/faq_550.aspx

Here’s an article about it: http://www.afrc.af.mil/news/NewsXtra/callingcard.htm

You can “recharge” them from home if they start to run low by using an 800 number and a PIN.

Here’s the link to order them: https://thor.aafes.com/scs/default.aspx

Pass it on. And to anyone else who’s got loved ones in Southwest Asia.

Guys out in the field, of course, might not have a lot of chances to use any calling card.

If anyone has any experience with these cards or better suggestions be sure to let us know in the comments section.

Don’t you hate it when something backfires on you? I sure do. But I don’t have Legacy Media to help try to turn the tables after they’ve been turned on me.

This is via Oh, THAT Liberal Media. The three following snippets are the ledes from the New York Times (the “Paper of Record”, mind you) and are by Eric Schmitt. All emphasis is mine.

12:30 PM Friday afternoon in Fast Withdrawal of G.I.’s Is Urged by Key Democrat:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 – The partisan furor over the Iraq war ratcheted up sharply on Capitol Hill on Thursday, as an influential House Democrat on military matters called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops and Republicans escalated their attacks against the Bush administration’s critics.

7:30 PM Friday evening in a since-changed Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 – House Republicans are attempting to split the ranks of the Democrats tonight by offering a resolution to withdraw American troops from Iraq immediately. The Republican-controlled House is expected to defeat the measure in a vote that the Republicans hope will leave the Democrats in disarray.

10:30 PM Friday night in a revised version of the same story:

The battle came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha’s measure and left little time for meaningful debate.

Talk about “military transformation”! We went from “Democrat calling for immediate withdrawal” to “Republicans calling to withdraw immediately” (as a stunt) to “Mr. Murtha calling for swift withdrawal”. All in about ten hours.

N.Z. Bear notes that the whole “it’s all about starting a discussion” song and dance is bunk. He notes the text of Murtha’s speech as posted on Murtha’s web site:

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME.

The CAPS are on Murtha’s web site. Does that mean he SHOUTED that sentence while delivering the speech? Anyway, N.Z. Bear writes:

You will note his closing line does not read “IT IS TIME TO HAVE A SERIOUS BI-PARTISAN DEBATE ON BRINGING THEM HOME.”

What makes this all even more amazing is that Fred Kaplan at Slate now maintains that Murtha wasn’t even calling for a withdrawal at all. He was calling for a “redeployment”. Here’s a large part of Kaplan’s most recent column, with some of my thoughts scribbled in the margins.

What Murtha Meant
We’re leaving Iraq anyway. At least he’s got a plan.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Nov. 21, 2005, at 5:50 PM ET

Ah, the old “there’s no plan” game. Anyone that thinks the military does anything without a plan (or several plans) is ignorant. Kaplan isn’t ignorant. That means he’s trying to mislead you.

Everyone in Washington seems to agree that Rep. John Murtha’s proposal for getting out of Iraq is a bad idea. But everyone is wrong in describing just what it is that he proposes.

Take a close look at Murtha’s now-infamous statement of Nov. 17. You will not find the words “withdrawal,” “pullout,” or their myriad synonyms. Instead, he calls for a “redeployment” of U.S. troops–which may seem like a euphemism for withdrawal but in fact is very different. Toward the end of his statement, Murtha lays out the elements of what he calls his “plan”:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

Yes, Mr. Kaplan. We realize that he’s calling for a “redeployment” and I’ll bet that Murtha’s staff spent a fair amount of time with Roget making sure that no terms he used could be construed as meaning “retreat”. However, if you’d like to play little word games, every “withdrawal” is a “redeployment” of forces. So is every “invasion”. Is he advocating the invasion of Kuwait?

At this point, I’m sure that most readers are pretty disappointed that Kaplans point seems to be “he didn’t say ‘withdraw’ he didn’t say ‘withdraw’ he didn’t say ‘withdraw’“. Is it worth going on? Probably not. But let’s forge ahead.

He doesn’t elaborate on any of these ideas, but it’s clear they don’t add up to “cut and run.” True, his final line reads, “It is time to bring them home,” but his plan suggests he wants to bring, at most, only some of them home. The others are to be “redeployed” in the quick-reaction forces hovering just offshore.

Isn’t that what we did 1991-2003? What’s next? “Redeploy” the Air Force to enforce some “No-Fly” zones?

Murtha stressed this point Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying he wanted to “redeploy the troops to the periphery.” He used that phrase–”to the periphery,” meaning just offshore or across the border from Iraq, not all the way home–three times during the interview.

Host Tim Russert never asked–nor did Murtha explain–what these forces will be doing offshore, or under what circumstances they might re-enter the conflict.

That shouldn’t be hard to fathom. If, say, Hell were to freeze over, I’m sure approval for a fact-finding mission would be forthcoming. In all fairness, Kaplan goes on to describe a study by the Center for American Progress, titled Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists that Murtha apparently read and liked. He also makes sure to point out that one of the studies authors was the Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration. Sort of a See? Not only does a Marine Congressman who voted for the war like the plan, but it was written by a Reagan man!I’ve been told for so long by so many people that Reagan and his cronies were so stupid, though, that I don’t understand how this is supposed to sway anyone.

Murtha also told Russert, with only slight exaggeration, “There’s nobody that talks to people in the Pentagon more than I do.”

I’m glad that Kaplan also cleared up the fact that this was an exaggeration. I guess that makes me wonder if anything Murtha says can be taken at face value. Or do we need to wait for a Kaplan column to translate it for us?

It almost doesn’t matter whether withdrawing or redeploying the troops is a good idea; it’s simply going to happen because there is no way for it not to happen (short of a major act of political will, such as reviving the draft or keeping troops on the battlefield beyond reasonable endurance). This is what Murtha meant when he told Russert, “We’re going to be out of there, we’re going to be out of there very quickly, and it’s going to be close to the plan that I’m presenting right now.”

Again, kudos to Kaplan for telling us that’s what Murtha meant. I took “I predict we’ll be out of there–it’ll be 2006″ to mean that we’d be out in 2006. I guess it’s a lot more nuanced than that, though.

So, the pertinent question becomes: What is the best way for redeploying? In other words, by what timetable (whether one is explicitly announced or not), after what political and military actions? How many U.S. troops should be left behind, and what should they be doing? Where should the others be redeployed, and under what circumstances will they move back into Iraq? Do we have any realistic strategic goals left in this war (one big problem in this whole fiasco is that the Bush administration never had any from the outset), and how do we accomplish them?

No strategic goals? Who’s he kidding? Everyone knows it was all about the oil. Again, the “no plan” canard, presented as if it’s common wisdom.

John Murtha’s proposal leaves open a lot of questions, but–seen for what it really says, not for how it’s been portrayed–it’s a start.

Well, in fact Kaplan’s really saying “…but–seen for what I’m telling you it says…”, and he’s missed the boat as the withdrawal/retreat/redeployment plan was shot down. Like usual, Kaplan isn’t totally off the mark. But he’s not really on-target.

Discussion is very much needed. But don’t pretend that this whole Murtha thing is about a discussion. Murtha may not have said “withdrawal”, but he didn’t ALL CAPS anything about any “discussion”.

FOB Danger handover to Iraqis is ‘significant’

Stars & Stripes:

When U.S. forces officially hand over Forward Operating Base Danger to the Iraqi government on Tuesday, it will be the 29th time an American base in Iraq has been relinquished. But, officials said Monday, handing over FOB Danger will be “the most significant transition of real estate thus far.”

That is in large part due to the complex’s history and singular identification with deposed ruler Saddam Hussein.

The complex is dominated by the Presidential Palace, built in 1991 for Saddam’s mother. Commanding a high spot of land on the Tigris River, the palace is the largest built by Saddam, whose birthplace is on the outskirts of Tikrit.

It’s in Tikrit, and was built for Saddam’s mother beginning in 1991.

Here’s a snippet of a press conference on October 28th with Major General Joe Taluto, the commander of the 42nd Infantry Division and Task Force Liberty:

Q: General, just to clarify a couple things. Number one, Saddam’s palace in Tikrit, that’s not your headquarters. That’s not the headquarters of the military for North-Central Iraq. That’s just one military headquarters. Am I wrong?

GEN. TALUTO: It has been the headquarters. The complex itself has been a U.S. FOB, known as FOB Danger. It was occupied by the 4th Division. It was occupied by the 1st Division, and it’s been occupied by the 42nd Division Headquarters. There will be no more U.S. presence at — and there will be no more FOB Danger. So the 101st who is replacing us is going to be headquarters — it will not be headquartered there. It’ll headquartered north of Tikrit.

Q: And just one more question. You said that, I believe, that 10 — you’ve closed 10 forward operating bases. You’ve been able to close or move away from 10 forward operating bases since June or July, as I remember. For some context, how many forward operating bases do you have in your area in order to give us a comparison?

GEN. TALUTO: We started with 27 bases when we came in, and so we’re down to 17. And the prospects for closing more are there. As the 101st gets in and gets past the election, and so on, and so forth, they’ll make their own assessments on where they can continue to draw down on bases.

The Iraqi Ministry of Finance will determine exactly what becomes of the complex.

Armed standoff on Rio Grande

Via the Cryptic Subterranean comes this World Net Daily report:

U.S. Border Patrol agents were backed down this week by armed men, dressed in what appeared to be Mexican military uniforms and carrying military weapons, who seized a captured dump truck filled with marijuana from the U.S. agents and dragged it across the border into Mexico with a bulldozer.

Border Patrol agents pulled over a truck full of pot, but the driver escaped across the river. Texas State Troopers and members of the county Sherrif’s department arrived and they all began unloading the haul, which was estimated to be around three tons. But

According to Hudspeth County Chief Deputy Mike Doyal, the dump truck driver returned with armed men, some of whom drove “official looking vehicles with overhead lights.” Some of those armed, Doyal told the El Paso Times, appeared to be Mexican soldiers in uniform with military weapons.

Someone with a bulldozer arrived soon after and hauled the truck into Mexico. There are reports that anti-drug commandos trained by the US have flipped and now work for the drug cartels.

And get this:

“We are very fortunate … no one got hurt. Everyone had the presence of mind not to cause an international incident, or start shooting.”

I’m very curious to know what’s behind that “…”. Because, from here, it appears that the international incident had already been caused. I’m not suggesting that it was the duty of these law enforcement officers to give their lives in a hopeless attempt to keep the truck. If they were clearly outgunned, they probably did the right thing. But then we need the military on the border.

This is not acceptable. But don’t expect much. After all, what did we do when they were shooting at our guys?

Mosque Blasts Spark Murtha’s Call for Muslim Pullout