US Army shows signs of strain in Iraq, Afghan wars

UNITED STATES: The U.S. Army is showing growing signs of strain as it tries to sustain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, including stress on soldiers, lower unit readiness, equipment shortfalls and money worries.

The Army, largest of the military services, has provided most of the ground forces in the 3-1/2-year-old Iraq war and 5-year-long Afghanistan war. About 102,000 of the 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are Army soldiers, as well as 16,000 of 21,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Many soldiers are facing second and third deployments. U.S. military leaders had expected lower U.S. troop levels in Iraq by now, but have been scrambling to sustain higher totals because of sectarian violence that has raised fears of a civil war. No significant cuts are expected until at least the middle of next year.

In the past two months, the Pentagon has extended two brigades of nearly 4,000 soldiers each beyond their scheduled departure date from Iraq - which can undermine morale and upset families at home.

Army officials also said they might need to turn more to part-time National Guard soldiers for future rotations.

Army leaders are expressing concern over getting sufficient resources to sustain overseas deployments and replace and fix tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment battered in Iraq.

The Army has warned of declining combat readiness of units as soldiers face less time at home bases for rest, training and re-equipping after a yearlong combat tour. In fact, a brigade due to deploy in January will have spent barely a year at its home base between tours in Iraq.

"The real question is: Can the Army do its job?" asked Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense for manpower issues under former President Ronald Reagan. "The Army is not going to be what it should be. There are going to be more deaths and longer wars because you're not at your peak readiness."

In a highly unusual move, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, last month did not give Pentagon leaders a mandatory fiscal 2008 budget plan after telling them the Army needed billions of dollars more to sustain operations in Iraq and perform missions elsewhere.

Schoomaker explained, "There's no sense in us submitting a budget that we can't execute - a broken budget." Schoomaker said he had confidence Pentagon leaders would resolve the matter, but added, "Until it's resolved, we're not going to go submit something just because the system wants us to."

Schoomaker wants about $140 billion in 2008, roughly $25 billion more than the outline initially set by the Pentagon for the Army.

He has told Congress that replacing, repairing and upgrading worn-out equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost $17 billion in the coming fiscal year.

Korb, an analyst with the Center for American Progress, and others have argued the 505,000-strong active-duty Army needs tens of thousands more soldiers in order to meet its current commitments and be ready for potential crises elsewhere such as the Korean peninsula. The part-time Army National Guard numbers 343,000 soldiers and the Army Reserve 190,000.

"The main problem at this point is over-deployment," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"I think more and more as time goes on, the problem is going to be retention (reenlistment) because there is a growing backlash in the military - a lot of anger not so much at the war but at the deployment schedule, the impact on family lives, the uncertain career prospects."

Washington, Wednesday, Reuters