Under Fire
As President Bush draws up a new Iraq battle plan, it's clear he will have a fight on his hands if he wants more troops
Whatever it's called, Washington is gearing up for a serious set-to over the issue, with Democrats arguing that anything like a surge ignores the message sent by voters in November's midterm elections. John Edwards, who last week announced that he is running for president in 2008, weighed in against sending more troops, as did Joseph Biden, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair who also plans to throw his hat into the presidential ring. Ditto many of the big-name Democrats in Congress–Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi among them–while GOP Sen. John McCain and independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman support a "surge" strategy.
If he goes that way, President Bush will have to contend with the strain additional troops would put on American military forces already nearing their breaking point. Those who think more soldiers could make a difference in Iraq argue that even 30,000 troops wouldn't be enough and note pointedly that the U.S. military simply cannot provide more. While Congress is widely expected to vote to expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps next year, such a move would have no impact on the conflict now underway in Iraq. "Those bodies aren't going to show up in battalions until 2009," says one Pentagon official.
Troops, too, are expensive–a rule of thumb is that it takes $100,000 to find, train, and equip each soldier. Expanding the overall size of the force could add some $6 billion to the military budget. It's a small price to pay, many say, at a time when the cost of the Iraq war is more than $6 billion per month. The greater concern is that troops are not getting any easier to recruit. "The big question is, are the American people really going to cough up another 50,000 soldiers and marines?" says the Pentagon official. "I have my doubts." Much of that recruitment ability, many say, hinges on the decisions the president makes in the days to come.
On the ground. At Camp Loyalty, south of Baghdad's Sadr City area, Capt. David Eastburn's company conducts daily convoys through neighborhoods that, troops here say, overwhelmingly support the Shiite Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM), also known as the Mahdi Army militia. Eastburn says the troops in his company are stretched thin, often conducting multiple patrols a day. But he and his soldiers say they're doubtful military solutions–even more troops–will fix what's wrong. "I don't feel it'll really change much," says Lt. Jonathan Martin. "If we are here for 18 months or 10 years, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference."
As they drive through East Baghdad's religiously mixed Karada neighborhood, the troops routinely pass buildings plastered with the image of the anti-American Shiite cleric and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr. "There is way more militia activity than we were briefed on before we arrived," says Eastburn, who adds that when American soldiers ask each other how they are doing, a standard answer around the base has become "JAM-tastic."
On a recent trip through Karada, many children waved at the passing convoy; others flipped the bird. Often, the kids throw rocks–"big ones," says Eastburn–that sometimes hit humvee gunners in the head. These days, says Eastburn, "the safety of our guys is the primary concern." The biggest day-to-day threats, though, are improvised explosive devices–the deadly roadside bombs. Many of those in this neighborhood come from Iran, says Eastburn, including some able to pierce even armored humvees.
advertisement
