BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Iraq Occupation

 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Joetheneophyte
19:25 / 12.04.04
Maybe I am not as much of an idiot as I first thought
 
 
grant
02:59 / 14.04.04
OK, over in this Indymedia/Fallujah thread, we started talking about troop numbers, where I got the idea from a few places (including this thread here) that we might be actually running out of troops.

One of the numbers that came up was that the active Army consisted of 480,000 troops, which was currently 34 percent of "our total fighting force."

That works out to 1.2 million soldiers.

The around 130,000 currently active in Iraq represents around one fifth of that. And that's getting close to some nerves, judging by the fact that generals are calling for more troops and extending tours/not letting the reservists or regular army soldiers go home once their initially agreed-upon time is up.

I just found this Oregonian article which has a nice breakdown of troop numbers, and confirms that "about a million" estimate up there.

Here's what seems to be the pertinent parts:

But the request Monday also revealed the Pentagon's lack of options for finding reinforcements.

(In other words, yes, we *are* running out of soldiers.)

The U.S. force in Iraq peaked during the invasion last year at roughly 155,000. And despite the addition of approximately 200,000 Iraqi police, army and other security troops since then, the U.S. number has dropped by only 25,000.

(Because the Iraqi forces have been oddly reluctant to shoot other Iraqis just because the Americans tell them to, in essence.)

The number of non-U.S. troops, currently 24,000, is unlikely to increase soon. Like Spain, some NATO members are waiting for a possible new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq before committing troops. They also want to complete more of their mission in Afghanistan.


(I want to know more about troop numbers in Afghanistan, because I have a strong belief there are more American soldiers there than you might expect there to be.)

That leaves the U.S. Army, which has nearly 1 million soldiers overall, including National Guard and Reserve troops. But many already have been put on active duty, and lengthy tours strain the system by putting retention and recruitment at risk.

At that, the 10 regular Army divisions, about 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers each, have troops tied up in South Korea, Bosnia, Japan and Afghanistan, and all have sent troops to Iraq.


(According to information I pulled from a "Soldiers For The Truth" website in the other thread, only four of the 10 divisions are currently ready to fight -- the others are all either fixing equipment, retraining for combat after months of being cops in Iraq, or else are busy in other parts of the world.)

In the United States, the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division has served in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Fort Drum, N.Y.-based 10th Mountain Division is on its second tour in Afghanistan.

As commanders cast about for fresh troops, one option is to send back a brigade from the 3rd Infantry Division, which led the siege of Baghdad last year, sooner than its expected deployment early next year. The 82nd Airborne Division, too, always has one brigade ready for rapid deployment and could leave its base at Fort Bragg, N.C., within days.

The numerically smaller Marines could add some troops. A combination of an Army division and a Marine regimental combat team is most likely, Nash said.

But the Camp Pendleton, Calif.-based 1st Marine Division, which joined the 3rd Infantry Division on the road to Baghdad, is in its second tour and taking some of the heaviest casualties of U.S. troops in Fallujah.


The article finishes with the depressing analysis that the more troops there are in Iraq, the bigger the perceived American presence, and the greater risk they'll all be at by basically pissing the people off. So we should be downsizing, but because we're in the middle of a fight/intifada, we can't.

----

OK, to augment that, after a bit of looking, I found these Department of Defense figures for troop strengths, just to get an idea of how the various branches stack up against one another.

As of fiscal year 2002, the active duty rosters for the...

Army = 486,000

Navy = 385,000

Air Force = 368,000

Marines = 174,000

If you'd like to see where those troops were, as of Sept 30, 2003, here's a pdf with the exact breakdown. There are a lot in Germany, Spain, Japan and South Korea.

------

Numbers for Afghanistan are officially unavailable, but recent press reports put it at "2,000 Marines being deployed to bolster the 11,000 troops already there."

Since, uh, they're being ambushed more frequently and they still haven't found Osama bin whatsisname, the guy who did that thing that must've had something to do with Iraq, right? Right?
 
 
grant
04:02 / 14.04.04
The abstract asks:
Are the US welcome in Iraq?

This news article from the AP wire, via the San Jose Mercury News has one possible answer:

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Two Marines will be court-martialed on charges including assault and dereliction of duty in connection with the death of an Iraqi prisoner in their custody, a Camp Pendleton spokeswoman said Tuesday.

...

Hatab was killed June 6 when Hernandez grabbed him by the neck and accidentally snapped a bone in his throat, according to the Marine Corps. Hatab had been left lying naked, covered in his own feces, for hours when he was found dead at the detention facility near Nasiriyah.

Military prosecutors said Hatab was singled out for punishment because he was captured with an M-16 rifle belonging to the 507th Maintenance Company of Fort Bliss, Texas, which had been ambushed in Nasiriyah in March 2003. The unit included Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

 
 
illmatic
08:14 / 14.04.04
Horrible, horible, horrible. This thread makes me want to cry.

Thanks for all the research, Grant

I do wonder what the fuck all those troops are up to in Afganistan.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:52 / 14.04.04
They're trying to remember exactly why it was they were there in the first place.

Oh, and playing "Most Wanted" poker.
 
 
grant
13:36 / 14.04.04
Actually, the Afghanistan thing is interesting.

They're still fighting the Taliban. And the Taliban are still fighting back.

It's just not something people like to think about, because that's supposedly "over."

Sorry, no, it's not. Our soldiers are still patrolling the mountains along the border, still getting killed, and the new government still doesn't actually control the country (that is, it doesn't actually govern).

Oh, and here are two stats that may be relevant that I looked up this morning in the CIA Factbook 2000.

Population of Iraq: 22.5 million
Population of Afghanistan: 25.8 million

That may have changed in the past four years, but not by much.

Think of US troop deployments in terms of percentage of population, maybe, and you get one angle of what's going on as far as "popular support" goes (and what a clusterfuck Iraq *has* to be already).
 
 
rizla mission
13:50 / 14.04.04
RE troop numbers etc: I know it's been said many times before, but isn't it baffling how the US's legendarily obscene level of 'defence' spending (?20 times the amount spent by the rest of the world put together or whatever it is?) somehow adds up to missles that hit the wrong country, helicopters that crash every five minutes and an army which is 'stretched to breaking point' as soon as it's asked to undertake a relatively limited ground conflict..?
 
 
grant
17:50 / 14.04.04
Here's another way to make sense of the numbers, courtesy of (what seems to me like) a pretty good, in depth analysis by Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, "Our Last Real Chance."


Over the course of the 1990s, a bipartisan consensus, shared by policymakers, diplomats and the uniformed military, concluded that troop strength was the key to postwar military operations. It is best summarized by a 2003 RAND Corp. report noting that you need about 20 security personnel (troops and police) per thousand inhabitants "not to destroy an enemy but to provide security for residents so that they have enough confidence to manage their daily affairs and to support a government authority of its own." When asked by Congress how many troops an Iraqi operation would require, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki replied, "Several hundred thousand" for several years. The number per the RAND study would be about 500,000.


That was counting on lots and lots of help from the UN and others.

The rest of that article, by the way, is really good -- easy to read, draws parallels between now and the situation that faced the British in 1920 (and that Iran faced after the overthrow of the Shah in the 1980s).

If you read it with a jaundiced, Bush-critical eye, you can easily glean a catalogue of fuckups from it, presented in juicy detail.
 
 
ibis the being
19:04 / 14.04.04
It's strange the way GWB compartmentalizes "the Iraqi people," "the insurgents," "extremists," "terrorists," and so on. Any Iraqi who disapproves of America's mission to liberate them is categorized as a fringe extremist group member, a minion of some evil force like Al Queda or Al-Sadr or Saddam. But surely that's not the way it looks over there? When you're running around with a gun shooting only the bad Iraqis, how do you tell them apart? Are they wearing different colored hats? What makes one of "the Iraqi people" one of the insurgents? His opinion on the war?

Look at Bush's weird compartments in this excerpt from last night:

Although these instigations of violence come from different factions, they share common goals. They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the democratic hopes of the Iraqi people. The violence we have seen is a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements.

It's not a civil war; it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship. In forums where Iraqis have met to discuss their political future, and in all the proceedings of the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraqis have expressed clear commitments. They want strong protections for individual rights; they want their independence; and they want their freedom.


This bit about Iraqis sitting around discussing politics in forums makes me laugh. What, are men and women coming in off the street, taking time out from getting blown up to duck into little tents marked "Town Hall" and chat about rights and freedom? No, a few bigwigs with the US Stamp of Approval are discussing such things, probably with American politicians, and not in the heart of Fallujah.

I don't care how psyched The Iraqi People (mostly) were when we deposed Saddam last spring, after a year of aimless combat those people have got to be either dead or really, really pissed.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
18:33 / 18.04.04
Spanish Leader Orders All 1,300 Troops in Iraq to Withdraw

MADRID, Spain -- Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Sunday he had ordered Spanish troops withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible.


Via the New York Times.

I'm torn on this. On one hand, good for them. Someone in the rather weak "coalition of the willing" has to say something, and it looks like this new Prime Minister is doing exactly what he promised he would do. (Without getting too in-depth about the possible causation between the train bombs and the elections...) On the other hand, that's 1,300 less troops that our militaries are going to have make up for. Which means more casualites...

There is no good way out of this.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:06 / 18.04.04
This New York Times story - could you provide a link, or a transcript of the germaine part? My understanding was that Zapatero was threatening to withdraw troops if UN control was not assumed by the June 30 deadline, but presumably the recent unrest has changed his mind...
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
19:09 / 18.04.04
This just in.

I'm particularly concerned with this sentence.

the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all.

Any UK-lithers care to expand on this? I don't know how your military command structure works. Could Blair order them to stay or could they just up and leave despite his wishes?
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
19:11 / 18.04.04
I got the Spain news from The Agonist. There is a link at top which I can't link to because it requires you to register for the New York Times.
 
 
The Tower Always Falls
19:21 / 18.04.04
Okay. It's a short little blurb Haus, with not a lot of info... Hopefully more shall be coming.

While Zapatero had run for office on a promise to withdraw Spanish forces from the U.S.-led coalition, the timing of the announcement was unexpected.

In an announcement from the Moncloa Palace, Zapatero said he had ordered the defense minister to "do what is necessary for the Spanish troops stationed in Iraq return home in the shortest time possible."

Zapatero spoke just hours after the new Socialist government was sworn in.
 
 
w1rebaby
20:54 / 18.04.04
BBC story on Spanish withdrawal
 
 
misterpc
16:26 / 19.04.04
I haven't got much substantial to contribute to this thread, most of the other posters have hit the major points. One interesting thing about the position of the new Spanish government is this bit (from the BBC): "With the information we have, and which we have gathered over the past few weeks, it is not foreseeable that the United Nations will adopt a resolution" that satisfies Spain's terms, Mr Zapatero said.

This is bad news, since presumably the US has been doing everything it can to persuade Zapatero to play ball. Between the lines, it looks like the US is still not taking the UN seriously, despite UN heavyweight Lakhdar Brahimi being sent in. But I guess we knew that already. I'm torn on that too - on the one hand, a multilateral response is the only way to claw back some dignity for the international community, on the other hand.... READ THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, DUBYA. It is solely the responsibility of the occupying power to administer and safeguard the territory until power is handed back to the people of the territory.

Without wanting to come over all hardcore, I worked in post-war Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the locals all said exactly the same thing: "Thanks very much for liberating us from the Serbs / the Taliban / the Ba'ath party (delete as necessary); now give us the reconstruction cash and fuck off." I found that attitude hardly surprising - I'd feel exactly the same way. But the longer "we" stay in these places, the worse it gets for us without necessarily getting a whole lot better for the locals. The recent riots in Kosovo showed this, putting back the political clock by about 2 years - and did anybody catch this story? Holy cremoley!
 
 
grant
16:33 / 19.04.04
And here's some cheery news about Iraqi soldiers.

Thems what's in the US-formed army won't fight and thems what's agin the US is getting real cozy with each other.

So, from the first (Newsweek) link:
The idea was to show Iraqis taking responsibility for security matters, and to help U.S. personnel lower their profile in preparation for the Coalition Provisional Authority’s transfer of sovereignty to Iraqi institutions on June 30.

The job fell to the 2nd Battalion of the New Iraqi Army, deployed at the Taji Military Complex northwest of Baghdad. Its 620 men had graduated from the Kirkush boot camp in January, and were the first Iraqi army soldiers to be deployed in a field military operation since the U.S. began reconstituting the post-war army.

One of the first signs of trouble was a terse U.S. statement, issued on April 11, confirming that an Iraqi army unit had refused to deploy to the conflict in Fallujah after being shot at in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad. But battalion members, some of whom were fired, and other eyewitnesses from Taji, paint a much more complicated and dramatic portrait of the incident.

...

The Iraqi soldiers were brought to Shulla, an impoverished community where adrenaline-charged Shiite militants were angry about the detention of one of Sadr’s top aides. Zubaidy said that his U.S. officers ordered Iraqi soldiers to open fire on the angry crowd in Shulla. “The American officers hysterically ordered us to shoot the 'traitors',” he recalls, “We were not asked beforehand to go fight our people in Shulla. If we had been….we would have resigned at the camp right away.”

Many Iraqi soldiers refused to fire, abandoned their weapons and fled from the scene, says Zubaidy. Another soldier from the battalion, Hamid Tamimi from Dijeil district in Salahuddin province, says some Iraqi troops even turned against the Americans and opened fire on U.S. personnel while chanting slogans and songs glorifying Sadr and his late father.



And from the second (BBC) link:
He was dressed in the trademark black of the Mahdi army, the militia led by the Shia Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr.

But 18-year-old Mohammed Odeh looked perfectly at home attending prayers outside the main Sunni Muslim mosque in Baghdad.


"I came to strengthen our religion and prove to the Americans we are one people," he said.



The Newsweek article has lots of interview material with some of the Iraqi Army soldiers. These are the people who the US is supposed to hand the country over to on June 30, right?



Dig this part:
Eyewitnesses at the Taji base report seeing the startling sight of soldiers from the 2nd battalion clad only in their underwear. “I was surprised to see more than 30 soldiers barefoot with only their underclothes on,” says Qais Al-Dulaimi, a contractor for the Baghdad Tower Contracting Company involved in U.S.-supervised reconstruction work in the camp. When Dulaimi asked an Iraqi officer about the nearly naked soldiers, the officer replied that they were being punished for disobeying military orders. “I served in the army for more than ten years without experiencing anything like this,” says Dulaimi.

In all, “about 70 Iraqi troops were left barefoot and without clothing outside the camp,” says Sabah Majeed, a resident of Al-Mizrffa village in the al-Taji river district. (The estimated figure of 70 was confirmed by Wissam al-Majmaa’i, the first lieutenant guarding the camp’s gate.) “They were told that they were sacked for non-compliance with military orders, and had no hope of returning to military service. I helped about 18 of them, with assistance from local tribes and families,” says the villager, who offered his own clothes to a soldier and drove off in his BMW wearing just his underwear.

 
 
Super Boiling Hero RamenKing
02:11 / 20.04.04
I am highly against America's involvement in Iraq. I see it as nothing but a vendetta that George W. Bush had against Saddam Hussein.
Also, has anyone else noticed that American Democracy has now become a religion? That the presidency is the priesthood, the flag is the cross, the constitution is the holy script, and the liberation of Iraq and many non-democratic countries is the Crusades? Just something to think about...drop me a message if you've come to this realization...
 
 
A fall of geckos
17:37 / 19.05.04
This news is currently unconfirmed by the American military, but sounds likely to be true.

It seems every time I read the news at the moment, I'm seeing something horrific that I know is going to make this whole situation worse.
 
 
sleazenation
18:15 / 19.05.04
And in other news This story of US Troops abusing journalists from Reuters (requires free registration) -

The abuse and Reuters complaint about it pre-date the recent revelations of abuse in US run detention centres and include accusations that the US troops employed remarkablely similar interrogation techniques. All three of the journalists involved were Iraqi.
 
 
grant
19:28 / 19.05.04
Lede from Gekko's link:
Wednesday May 19, 2004

A US helicopter fired on a wedding party in western Iraq today, killing more than 40 people according to Iraqi officials.
Lt Col Ziyad al-Jbouri, deputy police chief of Ramad, west of Baghdad, said between 42 and 45 people were killed in the attack, which took place in the early hours in a remote desert area near the border with Syria and Jordan. He said the dead included 15 children and 10 women.

 
 
MJ-12
20:20 / 19.05.04
For an administration that claims to want to defend marriage, they sure do seem to have an affinity for blowing up weddings.
 
 
Ganesh
23:11 / 19.05.04
And it wasn't even a gay one.
 
 
happylee
11:28 / 20.05.04
I believe that it is imperative that coalition forces remain until all the infrastructure is set in place for the Iraqi's to look after themselves. To pull out now will be devastating. A vacuum of power will give way to civil war. To make things worse the Kurds will get a homeland in the north poking Turkey in the eye. Not that I am against the Kurds having their own country but at this time the last thing needed in that area of the world is Turkey on a rampage, which is almost certainly what will happen.

The Iraqi people have been given all this freedom and they don't seem to want it, maybe it is going to their heads. I cannot condone the violence against civilians (and yes there does seem to be a lot of it going on) but I do believe that we might as well make the best of what we have done.

As yet I have seen no proof that our intentions were focussed on oil, other than the mongering performed by people against the war.
 
 
happylee
11:31 / 20.05.04
With regards to weddings I think the yanks are completely against them, some past examples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3730423.stm
(THE NEWEST)

http://www.cursor.org/stories/kakarak.htm
(REFERENCE TO FOUR WEDDING ATTACKS)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3297575.stm
(AT THE BOTTOM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2931297.stm
(AT THE BOTTOM AGAIN)
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:26 / 20.05.04
This just in.

America can't even decide who they want to install as chief tinpot wearer.
 
 
grant
15:05 / 20.05.04
Just in the interests of balance, it should be noted that, from what I gather, people tend to celebrate things in the Middle East with lots of small-arms fire. So a wedding, especially after everyone's a little toasted, is basically going to look like a bunch of guys firing guns into the air at odd intervals.

Call it a cultural problem.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:30 / 20.05.04
The Iraqi people have been given all this freedom and they don't seem to want it, maybe it is going to their heads.

I beg your pudding?
 
 
happylee
09:25 / 26.05.04
Going to their heads as previously they were unable to oppose anything whereas now they can demonstrate against anything going on (well as long as there aren't any yanks about to take pot shots). This is our fault as we created the vacuum of power with the inability to set in place martial law from the outset.

So what if I change it from "gone to their heads" to "are they really ready for it"?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
10:20 / 26.05.04
How about you try something that doesn't imply either racism or that another country isn't advanced enough for democracy?
 
 
FinderWolf
14:17 / 02.02.05
Not a lot of humor in Iraq, but this headline (on CNN)
is truly great:

>> Militants' 'hostage' GI is 12-inch action figure

They apparently said they had a US solider hostage and showed blurry video of a very realistic-looking GI Joe-type action figure.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:25 / 02.02.05
Thing I don't understand (and don't get me wrong, I'm glad the elections went ahead without *too* much violence... okay, there was tons of it, but a huge atrocity wasn't too much to be scared of...)... in what way, other than symbolically, are they actually relevant? The candidates were pretty much anonymous (cos, well, they didn't want to be killed)...
... other than that the coalition can say "yes, we've brought them democracy, see? They've got elections and EVERYTHING?" how were the elections different from, well, say the "end" of the war, in terms of actually MEANING SOMETHING other than PR?
I could well be missing something here. Cos I don't get it.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
19:58 / 02.02.05
as far as I can tell it is only Public Relations. The US/UK now have a fig-leaf to cover their modesty and an exit strategy. They've held democratic (at gunpoint) elections and can now move on to the next candidate for regime change.
Robert Fisk's article in the Independent was excellent. Apparently Jordan and Saudi Arabia are having fits about the emergence of a Shia crescent (Iran, Syria and Iraq).
 
 
Salamander
21:28 / 02.02.05
I hate to go slightly askew of the flow of conversation here, but is there anyone posting here that believes that the "Insurgents" are actually insurgents? (Hope I spelled that right) It seems to me that there are some hideously poorly armed Iraqis trying to exspell us before we sell everything off to foreign interests, (foreign to us and them) and the marines seem to be wielded like the billy clubs used in the old turn of the 20th century labor rights riots. As I see it, (and admitidly I am no where near keeping up with the news on the "actual" situation in Iraq as many on this thread are managing to do) we are going to beat them down until we've sold everything they have, run off with the money, and after two or three months Iraq will decay into civil war, and the U.S. will be drawn back in to take part in WWIII 1/2, the whole time China sitting pretty writhing its hands. Does anyone else see this happening?
 
 
Myshka
22:45 / 02.02.05
Regarding who classifies as an 'insurgent', I think its interesting to look at the
U.S. army field manual on 'counterinsurgeny operations'
Particularly the way it expands the use of the word 'insurgent' to include just about anyone who doesnt totally support American occupation.
At first it classifies insurgents as either leadership, combatants, cadre or mass base("the population of the counterstate"). Sometimes it talks specifically about killing combatants, but later there are lots of references to destroying simply "insurgents" with no further qualifications (ie inclusive of the mass base).
There is lots of other fascinating stuff in the manual which is the first U.S. manual on counterinsurgency operations since the early Vietnam era. More info on the manual here
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply