Problems growing in Iraq |

Problems growing in Iraq

Wear and tear on tanks in Iraq is outpacing the Army’s efforts to repair and resupply. The administration is scrambling to find thousands more troops by early next year. Stressed American soldiers suddenly are being given two-week vacations.

Five months into the American occupation of Iraq, there are growing signs that the Bush administration vastly underestimated what it would take to stabilize the country after Baghdad fell in early April.

Pentagon planners had not expected such a large U.S. force, now totaling 130,000 troops, would be required for such a long period — more than a year it now appears, rather than weeks.

They won’t acknowledge the miscalculation publicly, but recent developments make them obvious:

  • Wear on tank treads and vehicle tires that has far outpaced the Army’s ability to resupply them. Treads that normally are replaced once a year are wearing out in two months. Asked whether war planners had anticipated such heavy work for U.S. ground troops this long after the war, Gen. Paul Kern, the Army’s materiel chief, said, “Some did, some didn’t.”

  • The decision to require 12-month tours for all troops in Iraq, including reservists. When the 3rd Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force conquered Baghdad in early April, those troops thought the war was over and they would be headed home in a matter of weeks. Instead they stayed for months, and their replacements will serve even longer.

  • The disclosure this week by senior military commanders that they may have to take the politically sensitive step of calling up thousands more reservists for Iraq duty than was planned just weeks ago. A troop rotation plan announced in July included mobilization of two National Guard brigades. But that plan is being re-evaluated in light of continuing attacks on American forces and slow progress in getting other countries to contribute troops.

  • The Pentagon’s decision to begin granting troops a vacation break, leaves that began this week and are expected to increase in number.

    “They planned to pull the troops out quickly,” said Anthony Cordesman, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. That plan was based on what Cordesman called an illogical assumption that U.S. forces would be greeted almost universally as liberators, that political control could be handed over to Iraqis quickly and that there would be no insurgency.

    “We never really had a nation-building plan,” Cordesman said.

    Pentagon planners did foresee some post-war difficulties. They were prepared, for example, to deal with a refugee problem, with acute hunger, with a torching of oil fields or with an explosion of ethnic violence — none of which happened.

    What they did not fully foresee was the violence aimed at U.S. occupation troops and the other security problems that have hampered the reconstruction efforts and angered many Iraqis.

    An early indication that the administration did not foresee a long and violent post-war period was a statement made by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Feb. 27, shortly before the war began.

    “It’s not logical to me,” he told reporters, to think it would take as many troops to keep the peace as it would to win the war. The implication was that once Baghdad fell, U.S. forces could begin to draw down as Iraqis took over more of the security duties around the country.

    It remains the plan to transfer security and other responsibilities to the Iraqis. But the looting and lawlessness that descended upon parts of Iraq immediately after Saddam Hussein fell — followed by increasingly sophisticated and deadly ambushes of U.S. troops — have prevented any substantial decrease in the number of American troops.

  • TribLIVE commenting policy

    You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

    We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

    While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

    We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

    We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

    We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

    We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

    We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.