The Bush administration has clearly decided to try to 'manage' Iraq and 'finesse' Iran, hoping to muddle through until the election and then, if victorious, consider its options in the broader theater. The president and his top advisers evidently want to avoid 'new adventures' between now and November.
I take this to mean after Bush is reelected he will consider a broader array of ways in which to deal with Iran, including war. Bush and his advisors want to avoid ‘new adventures’ including regional and world wars until after November. Then attacking Iran is an option. This will be a much more devastating war for the United States in terms of casualties, human and economic.
US-Iran row heats up
posted June 16, 2004, updated 1:10 p.m.
US accuses Iran of intimidating UN ahead of vote on resolution critical of Iran's nuclear cooperation.
by Matthew Clark / csmonitor.com
While the US media focused on fresh violence in Iraq ahead of the June 30 power transfer and the capture of an American contractor by militants in Saudi Arabia, the smoldering row between the US and Iran intensified Wednesday. US diplomat Kenneth Brill accused Iran - one of the three members in the Bush administration's "Axis of Evil" - of bullying diplomats in order to relieve international pressure on Iran to cooperate more with UN nuclear weapons inspectors.
Iran has long maintained that its nuclear facilities are purely to create energy, and denies that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Mr. Brill said: "This full-blown effort to try to change the direction of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] board through public and private intimidation suggests Iran has something to hide. ... People who are trying to produce electricity for light bulbs don't engage in this kind of behavior."
Find out more. A Voice of America editorial, representing the views of the US government, states that "Iran, with its vast oil and gas resources, has little need for nuclear energy."
This comes on the heels of Iran's angry reaction to unusually candid comments by IAEA's director general Mohammed ElBaradei, who said Monday that Iran's cooperation with the IAEA had been "less than satisfactory" and that the probe "can't go on forever."
On Tuesday, IAEA members Britain, France, and Germany drafted what The Associated Press calls "a toughly worded resolution" that "lacked a direct threat of sanctions but did keep pressure on Iran to come clean on aspects of its 20-year covert nuclear program that was discovered two years ago."
"If this resolution passes, Iran will have no moral commitment to suspend uranium enrichment," Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said. "The IAEA resolution is very bad... [it] violates our country's rights. ... If it passes, in the future we will have more problems with co-operating with the agency."
The Tehran Times reports that the secretary of the Expediency Council, Mohsen Reza'i, warned Tuesday that Britain, France, and Germany would be making a serious mistake if they do not soften the resolution.
A dark point will forever remain in the history of Iran's relations with these countries if Europeans do not revise their proposed draft resolution and make amendments. ... Europeans must not confront Iranians and must not behave in a way as to reinforce the impression that Europe and the US are pursuing a continued dissension in the region and that they are seeking to open a new chapter of animosity.
Hundreds of hardline Islamic protesters gathered at two Iranian nuclear plants Wednesday, saying they would defend with their lives Iran's right to develop nuclear technology, reports Reuters AlertNet, citing Iran's official IRNA news agency.
The AP reports that the draft reprimands Iran for delaying an investigation, but does not include direct threats of sanctions. The BBC reports that officials in Tehran argue that they have met all the commitments, and claim Britain, France, and Germany are pushing the latest resolution because of US pressure. The US has been pushing for the IAEA to report Iran's alleged stonewalling to the UN Security Council, which may lead to formal sanctions.
Yet some pundits in the US, like long-time Iran critic Michael Ledeen, feel that Washington needs to take a much stronger line against the regime in Tehran.
The Bush administration has clearly decided to try to 'manage' Iraq and 'finesse' Iran, hoping to muddle through until the election and then, if victorious, consider its options in the broader theater. The president and his top advisers evidently want to avoid 'new adventures' between now and November.
But this is a very dangerous strategy, because it leaves the initiative, in Iraq and elsewhere, entirely in the hands of people like [suspected Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] and his longtime Iranian sponsors. Indeed, it seems to me that doing nothing is an open invitation to 'new adventures' in the Middle East, in Europe, and in the United States.
AP reports that diplomats of some of the 35 nations at the IAEA meeting said the draft resolution would likely be formally accepted later this week.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just ...."
And that our enemies can count.
Thomas Jefferson's nervousness remains as apt today as when he first expressed it in 1774. Of more immediate concern is the fact that our enemies -- Iran, especially -- can count.
The relevant arithmetic:
Today, nine of 10 active Army divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan or back and recovering for the next deployment. The Army reserve and National Guard grow ever more exhausted. The Marines, always overstretched, have taken on additional Iraq duties. In short, the United States has no combat-ready strategic ground reserve.
And while it is true that in an emergency, you go with what you've got, air and sealift shortfalls make it virtually impossible to move those forces in less than several months while still maintaining the current ventures.
This situation was eminently predictable, and for more reasons than the fact that occupation/counter-insurgency missions can be horrendously people-intensive. Ten years ago, the Clinton administration drew bitter mirth from the defense community when it announced that the United States could fight two simultaneous major regional conflicts, presumably in Korea and the Middle East, and win. After several seasons of the two-MRC sitcom, the administration decided to try a sequel: changing MRC to MTW (major theater war) and "simultaneous" to "overlapping time frames."
It mattered not. Any competent sergeant, and most generals, could tell you that our limited capabilities would permit us to fight one war while deterring the other with air and sea power or, failing that, applying the bombs and cruise missiles lavishly. That's still our de facto strategy, especially regarding North Korea, where we're moving troops off the border and withdrawing at least one brigade for Iraq duty.
Unfortunately, our fleet now numbers less than 300 ships, smallest since the 1930s. This month, the Navy undertakes "Summer Pulse 04," an exercise keeping seven aircraft carrier strike groups out of 12 at sea simultaneously, a feat considered impossible only a few years ago. It's a magnificent effort -- and a magnificent symbol of a Navy now far too small. As for the Air Force, it no longer maintains the frenetic operating tempo of the '90s. But those planes that got so overworked patrolling Iraqi no-fly zones and bombing the Balkans, haven't grown any younger. Adequate numbers of replacement aircraft are still years away.
In sum, with our ground forces occupied and strategically immobile, the Air Force and the Navy have a lot of deterring to do. Sad to say, not even the most technologically advanced aircraft or ship can be in more than one or two places at once.
Enter Iran.
In mid-June, Arab media reported that Iran had moved four divisions to the Iraqi border, along with the usual missiles. Iran, be it noted, also possesses a nasty array of anti-ship missiles and mines.
Now posit an Iraq in violent disarray this summer, or an Iraq getting ready to explode into a set of anti-American insurrections and civil vendettas and wars. An Iranian cross-border "incursion-in-force" could well intensify the in-country strife -- or trigger it. Perhaps the Iranians take a couple northeastern towns, settle in and dare us to respond. Do we send the already overengaged Army in? Or do we summon the Navy and the Air Force? And if so, how much and from where and for how long? And if we find ourselves having to tie down additional forces after it's over, how do we keep the world, and especially the North Koreans, from noticing?
Would Iran do this? Perhaps. In the Islamic world, the borders that matter aren't always the borders on U.S. maps. In the Islamic world, challenging and hurting America constitute victory. And war can always be used by the ayatollahs to justify more domestic repression in that restive land. Iran has much to gain from a limited cross-border incursion.
And so do the neoconservatives. Some, such as Michael Ledeen, have long argued that "regime change" must include Tehran, Damascus and Riyadh. For them, "Cauldronize the Middle East" is a slogan and a goal, not a fear. Nearly all the neo-cons favor dramatically increased defense spending. Perhaps they're also salivating over possible resumption of the draft. (The Selective Service System must notify the president by March 31, 2005, that it's ready for activation.)
Whether neo-con fantasies represent administration policy is hard to tell; so is the degree of their actual influence. What is clear is that both Iran and the neo-cons have their reasons for welcoming a limited expansion of the war.
After all, as a venerable Beltway proverb has it: Sometimes nothing succeeds like the right kind of failure. And what's true, or at least expedient in Washington, D.C., can also be true in Tehran.
Philip Gold is author of "Take Back the Right," to be published by Carroll & Graf this summer.
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whose government will assume sovereignty next month from the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in Iraq last week that he plans to have up to five of the divisions reconstituted "in a couple of months," the sources said.
Though no firm figures were discussed, five divisions could put 50,000 Iraqis into uniform.
However, the 50,000 planned Iraqi forces would not be by themselves, they would have the backing of 138,000 American soldiers through 2005 and an overall force of 160,000, including the troops deployed by coalition partners.
The 50,000 Iraqi force would be in addition to the 3,000 Iraqi army and a 37,500- member Civil Defense Corps trained by the United States.
In addition the U.S. Central Command has informally asked Army planners for up to five more brigades - about 25,000 troops - to augment the American force of 138,000 soldiers and Marines now in Iraq, military officers and Pentagon officials said.
Not only does this seem a significant overall increase in troops especially when considering the addition of the 50,000 planned Iraqi divisions these forces will be backed by an increase of 72 F-16s currently deployed in Germany to Incirlik in neighboring Turkey. #msg-3385389
Granted an increase in troops is being driven by requirements in theater but this will yield 75,000 more troops and 72 F-16s which looks a bit much for Iraq solely.
Again it appears Bush might be planning on going after Iran and/or Syria.
-Am
Iraq force may grow by 25,000 Possible mix of U.S. reservists, regulars would bolster security; 'We may need more people,' officer says
By Tom Bowman Sun National Staff Originally published June 23, 2004
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Central Command has informally asked Army planners for up to five more brigades - about 25,000 troops - to augment the American force of 138,000 soldiers and Marines now in Iraq, military officers and Pentagon officials said.
Some officers said any increase might well be lower, perhaps involving 10,000 troops that would be a mix of active-duty and National Guard units.
"For a period of time, we may need more people," said a senior officer familiar with the planning, noting the perilous security situation and the needs of Iraq's new interim government, which is to assume sovereignty a week from today. "It's clearly being driven by requirements in theater."
It is uncertain whether a formal request for more troops has been made by Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region. Neither is it clear that discussions between Central Command and the Army have reached Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Unstable Iraq
Even with 22,000 troops from other nations, primarily Britain, joining the American force, the U.S.-led coalition does not control Iraq's borders, has taken substantial casualties along roads and highways, and avoids key cities such as Fallujah.
Asked about the possible increase in U.S. troop strength, Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said: "It's been Secretary Rumsfeld's position that the combatant commander would have what he needs to prosecute the operation in Iraq. I wouldn't want to speculate on what Central Command would require as far as force structure."
Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters yesterday that more American troops are needed to combat Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah and elsewhere who are becoming "more adept" at fighting U.S. forces.
The senator said he has heard nothing from Central Command about a request for more troops. But Reed said fellow senators who recently returned from Iraq are picking up those signals from American commanders.
"My suspicion is, they're recognizing they could use more troops," Reed said.
Tapping the Reserves
Already, the Pentagon is digging deeper into National Guard and Army Reserve units as it prepares to rotate fresh troops into Iraq later this year to battle the stubborn insurgency and assist the new Iraqi government in building its own security forces.
The Pentagon is planning to call up thousands of members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of about 118,000 trained soldiers who have unexpired service obligations and are called to active duty only on rare occasions, such as the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
About 2,300 of them are now serving as part of the Iraq effort, though the vast majority are volunteers. But now the Pentagon is looking to involuntarily mobilize up to 6,500 of the reservists to fill vacancies in active and reserve units, said one officer, who, like other officers and Pentagon officials interviewed for this article, requested anonymity.
The reservists selected would likely possess critical skills needed in Iraq, such as military police and civil affairs training, officials said.
As U.S. forces perform such duties as training Iraqi recruits or protecting members of the interim government, more American troops may be needed to perform other tasks, such as patrolling, the senior officer explained.
Higher troop levels
Until now, Pentagon planners expected to maintain the current level of 138,000 American soldiers through 2005 and an overall force of 160,000, including the troops deployed by coalition partners.
Adding five brigades would increase the coalition force to 185,000, far more than originally envisioned.
Pentagon planners had once hoped to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 105,000 by late spring.
The additional troops, if approved by Rumsfeld, would be part of the next rotation of U.S. forces that is to begin in September and continue into next March. Like the current force, those Army troops are scheduled to spend a year in Iraq.
Within the past two weeks, two Army National Guard units - totaling about 7,000 troops - have been alerted for possible duty in Iraq in the next rotation. That is in addition to the four Guard units the Pentagon said in March would be sent to Iraq by the end of the year.
The two added units are the Mississippi Army National Guard's 155th Brigade Combat Team, which has 4,015 soldiers, and the 2,944 reservists from the 56th Brigade of the 36th Division from the Texas Army National Guard. Both units are expected to be mobilized in the next two months, officials said.
While the Texas unit is to replace a Guard unit now serving in Iraq, there is no word on whether the Mississippi force will replace any Guard or active-duty U.S. unit in Iraq or would be in addition to those already there, officials said.
The Mississippi and Texas soldiers would join four other Guard units already set for the next rotation into Iraq that begins in September - the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment from Tennessee, the 116th Cavalry Brigade from Idaho, the 256th Brigade Combat Team from Louisiana and the headquarters division of the 42nd Infantry from New York.
Other options
It is uncertain which active-duty units - if any - would be used to increase the U.S. force, since most of the Army's 10 active-duty divisions are now in Iraq or Afghanistan or resting up to head back. There was no immediate information on whether any more Marine units would be deployed.
One option for beefing up the U.S. contingent is to accelerate deployment of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which has been expanded from three brigades to four as part of a modernization effort. The division is scheduled for deployment this year.
Another unit that could be sent to Iraq earlier might be the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., which was scheduled to replace the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, another Stryker unit from the base, later this year.
The Stryker is the Army's new lightweight, eight-wheeled armored vehicle.
Iraq wants army back Prime minister tells Pentagon that abolished divisions will be reconstituted to restore order
BY KNUT ROYCE WASHINGTON BUREAU
June 24, 2004
Iraq's prime minister told a top Pentagon official last week that he will move rapidly to reconstitute several of the army divisions abolished by the United States last spring, with officers and soldiers regaining their previous ranks, salaries and pensions, according to well-placed sources.
Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whose government will assume sovereignty next month from the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in Iraq last week that he plans to have up to five of the divisions reconstituted "in a couple of months," the sources said.
Though no firm figures were discussed, five divisions could put 50,000 Iraqis into uniform.
Allawi had signaled for weeks that he planned to tap into the ranks of former army officers to beef up internal security forces. "Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a big mistake," Allawi told reporters Sunday. "We are fixing the mistakes of the Americans."
Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he would not be surprised if Allawi issued an order restoring Saddam Hussein's army "as a symbolic move."
But those familiar with Allawi's conversation with Wolfowitz said the new prime minister was "very forceful" when he declared, according to one of the sources, "This is our business, and we're going to do that." Wolfowitz did not object, the source said.
"We'll stand our old units back up and we'll have four, five divisions in a couple of months," Allawi reportedly said. Iraqi Army divisions typically had about 10,000 men each, according to estimates when coalition troops invaded last year.
Allawi told Wolfowitz that his promised reversal of the U.S. order abolishing Hussein's army would "reinstate everyone in their previous grade, reinstate salaries and pensions."
The reinstatement would apply to most members of the elite Republican Guard, although officers tainted with operations against the Kurds or Shia would not be included.
Iraq, reeling under a violent insurrection, now has a 37,500- member Civil Defense Corps trained by the United States and a minuscule army of 3,000 soldiers. Allawi has made clear he believes his first order of business is to establish security.
But an administration official familiar with Allawi's intention to bring back at least a portion of Iraq's former army of 425,000 men cautioned that Allawi will face a number of problems.
"Wanting to do it and actually getting it done are two different issues," he said.
It is unclear, for instance, how Allawi will get the materiel to equip the divisions so quickly. "They've got a lot of personal gear," said a source familiar with the discussion between Allawi and Wolfowitz. "What they're going to need is armor and artillery and trucks." Wolfowitz told the lawmakers Tuesday that there was a shortage of funds to equip a larger Iraqi army.
Also, bringing back elements of Hussein's army would be unpopular among Kurds to the north and Shia to the south, who were brutally put down during several insurrections.
Nevertheless, the administration official said, Allawi's decision demonstrates that he is "showing some leadership and really stepping up to the plate and charting his own course for the country."
Even if Allawi can muster and equip five divisions over the next several weeks, most officials agree that such a force would still be insufficient by itself to defeat the insurrection.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
