Thread: Joint Chiefs Chair Says Stress On Military Worse Than Ever

Joint Chiefs Chair Says Stress On Military Worse Than Ever

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:16 AM

WASHINGTON -- Stress on U.S. troops from repeated combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan is "extraordinary" and may be worsening even as fighting eases in Iraq, the military's top officer says.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Adm. Mike Mullen expressed hope that the strain will be relieved gradually as the Marine Corps and Army expand the pool of available forces.

The Marines, for example, created an additional battalion this fall and plan to add another by February, Mullen said. That will allow them to "feed the fight as well as relieve the stress," he said.

The Army, while also growing, will take longer to put additional combat units into the pipeline for fighting wars, he said.

When he became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a little over a year ago, Mullen made much of his concern that stress on the force — and on troops' families — could undermine military readiness.

Since then, improved security in Iraq has opened the door to a withdrawal, or at least a slowdown in troop rotations there. But at the same time conditions in Afghanistan have worsened and commanders there are calling for substantially more troops. Thus, slack in Iraq is being taken up by the push into Afghanistan.

In the interview in his Pentagon office, Mullen made clear that he remains concerned about stress, but stopped short of calling it a crisis.

"We see extraordinary stress and pressure there," he said, quickly adding, "We're not about to break" the force.

He was asked whether he has seen any easing of stress in recent months.

"I still think it's probably about where it was — it may be a little worse," he said. "What is hugely different in the force though, is the resilience and the skip in the step" of troops who feel they have seen success in Iraq.

Also working in favor of the force was the Bush administration's decision last summer to reduce maximum combat tours from 15 months to 12 months. Mullen said he does not see that being reduced below 12 months, in part because he believes most commanders think their troops are most effective when they have a full year to execute their mission.

Many Army units get only one year at home between Iraq or Afghanistan deployments of 12 months or longer. Mullen wrote in a directive to his staff this week that the military must move "deliberately and prudently" giving units two years off for every year they spend on the war front.

Mullen is not the only one worried about the strains. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general who recently visited Iraq, said in a Nov. 10 trip report that there simply are not enough U.S. troops to maintain a robust presence in Iraq while also building up forces in Afghanistan.

"The likely strategic outcome will be a more rapid forced drawdown than desirable in Iraq in order to enhance combat power for Afghanistan," he wrote. "It will be a tricky balance, but in my judgment we will pull this off successfully" and Iraq will stabilize, he added.

Pentagon officials, including Mullen, have consistently rejected timelines for pulling troops out of Iraq, saying any withdrawal must be based on security conditions in Iraq. At the same time, military leaders have said they need 15,000 to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan — including four more combat brigades.

There are now 151,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 32,000 in Afghanistan. One Army brigade of about 3,500 troops originally scheduled to deploy to Iraq this fall has been diverted to duty in Afghanistan in January, and Mullen said he supports efforts to send even more to Afghanistan in 2009.

Mullen, who is halfway through a two-year term, said he has no reason to believe he will not remain after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January. "We all serve at the pleasure of the president. I'll serve as long as he wants me to," he said.

While stressing that he is carrying out the orders of the current president until Jan. 20, Mullen said the military is prepared to execute an accelerated withdrawal from Iraq if ordered by Obama.

"I've been listening to the campaign, and I understand," Mullen said. "And he has certainly reinforced that since the election, so from a planning standpoint, we are looking at that as well."

http://www.newsmax.com/us/Mullen_milita ... 52922.html

Gates, Rice Defend Iraq Security Pact

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:36 PM

WASHINGTON — The security agreement between U.S. and Iraq provides both the time and authority needed for American troops to train Iraqi forces and pursue terrorists, senior Bush administration officials said Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were explaining and defending the agreement in classified briefings to Congress, some members of which are skeptical of the agreement that lays out U.S. troop withdrawal timelines and gives Iraq limited legal jurisdiction over U.S. forces and military contractors who commit crimes.

The 21-page document was signed on Monday in Baghdad by U.S. and Iraqi officials after months of painstaking negotiations, but it still must be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Tempers ran high when debate began in the Iraqi parliament this week, including a clash between supporters and opponents on Wednesday.

Although the Bush administration contends congressional approval is not required on the U.S. side, the White House dispatched Gates and Rice to Capitol Hill to assuage lawmakers' concerns as the clock ticks down on the existing United Nations mandate for the troops' presence in Iraq. The U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31.

The agreement sets a June 30, 2009, deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraqi cities and towns and a Dec. 31, 2011, deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, according to a copy obtained by the AP.

The pact generally calls for the U.S. to coordinate military operations with the Iraqis and aid the country in deterring any security threats, but it also says that "Iraqi land, sea, and air shall not be used as a launching or transit point for attacks against other countries."

Officials dismissed suggestions that the U.S. has retreated on its initial vehement opposition to withdrawal deadlines, insisting that any troop drawdown be based on security conditions. Instead, they said that change is due to improved security and better Iraqi forces.

"Their competence, their confidence has increased tremendously. And so, that's why we're able to work on a date," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. She added that the document was a negotiation and, "we asked for some things that we didn't get; they asked for some things that they didn't get. And we met them somewhere right in the middle."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Geoff Morrell echoed those comments.

"The security situation has improved so dramatically, and the Iraqi security forces have improved so dramatically that we are confident that, if things continue to trend as they have been, our services will not be needed in Iraq, come 2012," Morrell told reporters.

He said officials believe the agreement both respects Iraqi sovereignty and provides U.S. forces with the authority to continue to go after insurgents, while still giving the Iraqis the training and equipment they need to take over security of their own country.

The agreement also gives Iraq an element of legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and military contractors who commit "grave premeditated felonies" while they are off-base and off-duty. A list of those crimes is to be compiled by a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee. The United States, however, would retain custody of such soldiers and also determine if they were on or off duty during any alleged crime.

Both Rice and Gates have said they would not be pushing the agreement if they did not fully support it, but members of Congress, including Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., are troubled by some provisions and said they have had little time to review the agreement.

"Here we are with the clock ticking, running out. There's been no input from Congress and the American people have been kept in the dark," said Delahunt, who was chairing a hearing on the issue Wednesday ahead of the testimony from Rice and Gates. "I still have serious reservations about this agreement."

Delahunt and others, notably House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., have expressed concern about the "vague" nature of the agreement.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he has some concerns about the agreement, particularly on the provisions providing immunity for U.S. troops and authorizing US combat operations. He would not elaborate, citing classification concerns.

But South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham said he is not concerned about the provisions in the agreement that give the Iraqi government the right to prosecute U.S. troops for crimes committed when they are off duty and off base.

"We decide when someone's off duty, off base," he said.

The agreement calls for the United States to hand over a list of all detainees to the Iraqi government. The government will issue warrants for the prisoners it wants, with the remainder to be set free except under exceptional circumstances.

Graham said he had concerns about what will be done with all the roughly 16,000 prisoners, especially foreign fighters, that are currently in U.S. custody in Iraq, particularly given that Iraqi prisons are already over capacity.

"I don't know, you've got some really bad guys," Graham told reporters after leaving the briefing.

The agreement requires the U.S. to inform Iraq within 24 hours if it detains any new prisoners and be ready to hand them over. However, the Iraqi government may let U.S. forces continue holding them, Graham said.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/rice_g ... 53138.html