U.S. officials warn U.S. army lacks fresh troops to replace Iraq troops

WASHINGTON, September 3 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – As a new congressional report warned Wednesday, September 3, that U.S forces will not be able to maintain its current troops levels in Iraq beyond next spring, President George W. Bush signed off on a proposal for a new Security Council resolution expanding the U.N. mandate in Iraq and encouraging countries to send troops to the war-scarred country.

The report by Congressional Budget Office warned that if the current policy of keeping units in a war zone no longer than one year is preserved, the U.S. army "would be unable to sustain" its present Iraq contingent "beyond about March 2004."

So sustaining the current levels of nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq would require  American forces to increase the overall size of the military, end other overseas commitments or rescind troop rotation rules in order to sustain its current levels, said the report carried by Agence France-Presse (AFP).

But U.S. officials said the army lacks fresh troops to replace soldiers who will have to start withdrawing next spring.

As a result, it will be able to keep in Iraq indefinitely only between 38,000 and 64,000 troops, if it relies exclusively on its active duty soldiers and some reserve units, according to the CBO report.

But even if the Bush administration embarked on the most radical mobilization drive since the end of the Cold War and decided to add two more army divisions to the present ten, the U.S. contingent in and around Iraq could not be sustainably increased to more than 129,000 troops, congressional researchers concluded.

The report was certain to add fuel to the growing debate in Washington over the Bush administration's readiness to handle post-Saddam Iraq, including the costs of occupation.

‘Flawed’

The congressional report coincides with a secret one for top U.S. generals saying that U.S planning process for rebuilding Iraq and for searching for alleged weapons of mass destruction was flawed, rushed and deficient.

The report, prepared last month by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and obtained by The Washington Times, said Bush approved the overall strategy for Iraq invasion in late August of 2002, and kept Israel abreast of the planning all along.

"Late formation of DoD (Department of Defense) organizations limited time available for the development of detailed plans and pre-deployment coordination," the report said.

"Command relationships (and communication requirements) and responsibilities were not clearly defined for DoD organizations until shortly before [Operation Iraqi Freedom] commenced," it added.

On the search for alleged WMD, the lynchpin of Bush’s justification for the war, the report said "planning efforts did not occur early enough ... to allow CentCom (Central Command) to effectively execute the mission."

The report revealed deficiencies in the planning process for post-invasion Iraq, and planners were not given enough time to put together the best blueprint for the ongoing reconstruction of Iraq.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the report, the daily said.

U.N. Help

In a related development, senior U.S. officials said Washington would seek a new U.N. Security Council resolution to expand the international organization role in Iraq, making it easier for more countries to commit troops.

The U.S. is to ask the U.N. to approve the creation of a multinational force in Iraq in return for ceding some political authority, U.S. officials were quoted by the BBC News Online as saying.

No exact details have been released of the draft resolution, inked by Bush, but it could be put before the Security Council as early as this week.

Unnamed U.S. officials told the BBC News Online that the draft redefines the role of the U.N. in the process of transferring power to the Iraqi people - and opens the way for more troop and financial contributions to help Iraq's reconstruction.

It also coincide with a threat from a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to set up armed militias, a new indication of growing impatience with the U.S. occupation administration.

The Bush administration has long resisted a bigger U.N. role in occupied Iraq.

But the enormous expense - coupled with the estimated four billion dollars a month being spent on the military occupation of Iraq, growing criticism of the offensive and a rising death toll among U.S. troops - has created a new urgency in recruiting more countries to send troops.

Washington also hopes a U.N. blessing will persuade big military powers to contribute troops.

Turkey, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are among the countries that could supply substantial peacekeeping forces, but have held back because of the absence of a U.N. mandate.

Several council members, led by France, have refused to back any measure that would endorse a U.S.-dominated occupation of the Arab oil-rich country.

It remains unclear how much authority the administration is willing to cede to the United Nations, the Washington Post reported.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in remarks released Wednesday, August 27, that the U.S. may be willing to accept U.N. leadership of the international force in Iraq if a U.S. general is in command.