Deployment Math: How NATO Adds Up
By smagar Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is for those who claim that our international "friends and allies" (John Kerry's words from a Washington Post July 4th OpEd), can relieve us of a significant amount of the military burden in Iraq, if only we'd say pretty please.
Well, based on some information on NATO's military capability, drawn from the Economist's July 3rd edition, that's claim is pretty empty. Follow along with me:
According to the July 3rd issue, "of 1.5 million soldiers available to NATO's European members, fewer than 100,000 can actually be deployed." Assuming that, in the face of ballooning social welfare costs and shrinking populations, the militaries on the Continent won't be modernizing or growing anytime soon, that leave us with a starting figure of 100,000.
A recent article by a New Zealand army officer, which lauded his country's peacekeeping force (one whole battalion!) in East Timor, said that his country followed a four-part formula for deployable forces: One quarter of the total force is deployed, one quarter is preparing for deployment, one quarter is recovering from deployment, and the fourth quarter is performing sustainment/support duties. Using that formula for NATO, that gives us a possible pool of 25,000 troops in combat at any one time.
Subtract the British and Dutch contingents (who are already fighting in Iraq), the 7000 NATO/EU peacekeepers in Afghanistan, and we are left with how many troops to rush to our aid in Iraq? A corporal's guard?
So much for "friends and allies" to the rescue.
We don't need cheerleaders from the sidelines, we need nations with trained, professional, competent militaries. Plenty of nations are willing to send 50-100 "noncombatants" on peacekeeping duties--but they expect someone to safeguard them, to keep the peace for them.
C'mon Bryant, I'm sure you knew what I was getting at. You just couldn't bring yourself to address my main point. I'm glad if Mauritania and the Seychelles Islands decide to support us in Iraq, but how will that help make Iraq a more peaceful place?
The best military alliance in the world is NATO. If they're as weak as the Economist article and my math indicate, then all this wishful thinking of passing the burden in Iraq to other nations is really just that--wishful thinking. Or empty dreams--take your pick, Bryan.
And we are making great strides in getting to that point.
See:
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2004/08/iraqi-security-forces-take-charge
.html
* The Iraqi Police Service, Facilities Protection Service, and Department of Border Enforcement currently stand at some 183,781 working officers (MNF number).
* The Civilian Police Assistance Training Team's Emergency Response Unit - an elite 270-man Iraqi Police Service unit trained to respond to national-level law enforcement emergencies.
* The Iraqi army will deploy a fully trained and operational force of more than 29,000 soldiers and 27 battalions by early 2005. Several battalions are already deployed: Also last week, the 5th battalion activated and two additional battalions deployed to the Baghdad area, joining the previously deployed Iraqi Intervention Force's 2nd Battalion, to form an army security force of three fully-trained regular army units in and around the capital city. See also: Iraqi Army's 5th Battalion has deployed to Baghdad
* Iraqi Intervention Force, a branch of the Iraqi Army specifically trained in counterinsurgency operations: Iraqi Intervention Forces' 4th Battalion was deployed to Baghdad early August.
* The Iraqi National Guard: Currently comprised of 38,250 trained soldiers. Another 3,000-plus troops are in training and will soon bring the force to a full strength of 41,254 personnel. Iraqi National Guard and police have teamed up on operations.
The forces are all volunteer. The men doing this, given the risks to them, are Iraqi heroes and patriots. To get the forces set up, Equipment for Iraqi Security Forces is being supplied on a large scale. More equipment is flowing to Iraqi security forces each week.
Training has also been going on, graduates of basic training have bolstered Iraqi Army, Iraqi National Guard, and now NATO has joined in helping training. A number of countries are assisting in training and equipping to help Iraq get security forces standing up.
Here are some examples where Kerry makes an absurd claim about Iraq - he is beleiving his own lies about what the situation is there, and it's sad:
Kerry: "If I get other countries involved in the training of troops" ...
NATO begins training Iraqi forces
Kerry:"You need to have more people involved in the process" ...
31 Member Coalition in Iraq
Riyadh, July 29: Colin Powell held talks in Jeddah with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to discuss possibility of deploying a Muslim force in Iraq
Kerry:"We have not seen this Administration do the statesmanship"
Powell in Brit Hume interview: Now in the last year or so, I have worked on, I think it's four or five -- I don't I can get that count for you -- resolutions dealing with Iraq before the United Nations. And every one of them was passed unanimously: 1483, 1500, 1511, 1546.
So if Putin sends troops to Iraq, that wouldn't be useful?
For that matter, I'm not inclined to so cavalierly dismiss Australia or Canada. But that's me.
Putin's troops? Useful? Dear God, NO! After Chechnya, I don't think I'd trust Russian troops anywhere near a Muslim country that we wish to have friendly relations with.
Australia is already deployed in Iraq. If Howard had more troops available, he'd send them. The Aussies are good people, and probably our best friends, full stop.
Canada's military has been cut to ribbons by their Liberal government over the past decade or so. IIRC, they have managed to scrape together a few soldiers to contribute to Afghanistan, but that thoroughly taps them out in terms of deployable strength.
When'd NATO become the sum total of our friends and allies? Must have missed that.