Global Policy Forum

By Tom Squitieri

New foreign peacekeeping troops are set to begin arriving in Iraq in mid-August, but months of U.S. arm-twisting have produced only about half the soldiers the Pentagon was counting on. As of now, there won't be enough foreign troops to permit the replacement and withdrawal of some U.S. forces planned for early next year.

The Pentagon has said it expected some 30,000 foreign troops to replace war-weary U.S. combat forces. But dozens of interviews with foreign political and military officials found that so far, 29 countries have committed only about 15,500 troops.

About a third of those are either unqualified for combat or deliberately barred from combat operations by their governments, the foreign officials say. That could limit their usefulness in the violent, guerrilla-style war coalition forces are now waging in Iraq. Asked Monday whether the foreign troops headed to Iraq were "militarily significant," Paul Bremer, the U.S. envoy to Iraq, replied, "Some are...some more than others."

"The issue is the quality of forces, and are they ready for combat," says Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in U.S. defense strategy. "In the Sunni triangle (an area north of Baghdad where Saddam Hussein loyalists have attacked U.S. troops aggressively), you need to have top caliber U.S. or NATO forces. In the north and the south, you can probably use (the others)."

There are now 146,000 U.S. troops and 11,000 British troops in Iraq, plus a smattering from other nations. British forces were never part of the plan to replace U.S. troops. Pentagon officials have said at least 160,000 troops will be needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Under a rotation plan announced recently by the Pentagon, the Marine's 1st Expeditionary Force is to be replaced in September or October by a multinational division led by Poland. That rotation appears to be on schedule.

Of more concern to military planners are future multinational units, including one that is scheduled to replace the Army's 101st Airborne Division next February or March. No country has emerged to lead that division, and no forces have been identified to replace the 101st, now in northern Iraq.

On Tuesday, Army Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane told reporters that negotiations are underway with 11 nations to get troops to replace the 101st. If the negotiations don't succeed by the fall, he said, U.S military leaders will have to consider using U.S. troops from the Army or the Army Reserve.

Without more foreign troops, the Pentagon has limited options. Forcing current U.S. troops to stay indefinitely seems unlikely because of a rising clamor among families and the troops themselves to rotate home. Other options include sending more National Guard or Reserve units, reducing troop strength in Iraq or shifting troops from other missions, experts say.

"The Defense Department is putting together a way of dealing with Iraq that is plausible but highly perishable," says Andrew Krepinevich, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. "Extending tours of duty to one year and calling up more National Guard units will plug the gap, but are not likely sustainable over the long term, even with a modest increase in ally contributions."

Pentagon officials remain hopeful they can pry significant numbers of troops out of India, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, France and Germany, but many or all of those have signaled they are unlikely to participate unless the United Nations adopts a specific new resolution creating a peacekeeping force — something the Bush administration has indicated it will not ask for. And hopes of participation by a prominent Arab nation were set back Tuesday, when Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo said they would not send peacekeeping troops.

Nor is the Pentagon likely to get any immediate help from NATO, which takes over responsibility for peacekeeping in Afghanistan on August 11. NATO also has ongoing operations in Kosovo and Bosnia.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.