How the US Army's being worn down in Iraq

I've mentioned this before, but the US military has neither the "ready" troops nor equipment to wage additional war. I doubt that will stop Bush, however.

Recently, the Washington Post reported that US President George W Bush's "surge" of troops to Iraq by 21,500 "would create major logistical hurdles for the US Army and Marine Corps". That's a nice way of putting it, like calling a tsunami a maritime disturbance or an earthquake a tectonic-plate adjustment.

The truth is that after nearly four years of fighting in Iraq, the US military is deeply stressed and worn out by its operations there. While most dispassionate observers are aware of this, it is not



something the Bush administration likes to talk about. Nevertheless, the truth is that from a US military perspective, Iraq is increasingly burdensome.

Consider the following facts. Last year senior Marine Corps officials admitted that if the war in Iraq ended tomorrow and marine units were shipped home, it would cost US$12.8 billion to re-equip them with vehicles and gear lost in combat and through wear and tear. That outlay would take up a significant portion of the corps's yearly budget, which in 2004 stood at nearly $17 billion.

Last July, Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Bush noting that up to two-thirds of the army's combat brigades were not ready for wartime missions, largely because they were hampered by equipment shortfalls.

Much of the equipment deployed in Iraq is beginning to wear out as a result of heavy use, harsh operating conditions, and the frequent attacks launched by insurgents. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of weapons in units away from the war zone are eroding as equipment is transferred to deploying units. The latter problem is particularly pronounced in the reserves, which already were functioning with a deficit of modern equipment when the war began.

(read more)