Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Fatigue Cripples U.S. Army in Iraq

By Peter Beaumont, The Observer UK. Posted August 13, 2007.


Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq, leaving the army with a major shortfall of combat-ready brigades. Can the military cope?
Advertisement

Lieutenant Clay Hanna looks sick and white. Like his colleagues he does not seem to sleep. Hanna says he catches up by napping on a cot between operations in the command centre, amid the noise of radio. He is up at 6am and tries to go to sleep by 2am or 3am. But there are operations to go on, planning to be done and after-action reports that need to be written. And war interposes its own deadly agenda that requires his attention and wakes him up.

When he emerges from his naps there is something old and paper-thin about his skin, something sketchy about his movements as the days go by.

The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan -- a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad -- hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas -- bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda -- these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

The first soldier starts in again. 'My husband was injured here. He hit an improvised explosive device. He already had a spinal injury. The blast shook out the plates. He's home now and has serious issues adapting. But I'm not allowed to go back home to see him. If I wanted to see him I'd have to take leave time (two weeks). And the army counts it.'

A week later, in the northern city of Mosul, an officer talks privately. 'We're plodding through this,' he says after another patrol and another ambush in the city centre. 'I don't know how much more plodding we've got left in us.'

When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. There is a corrosive anger, too, that bubbles out, like the words pouring unbidden from a chaplain's assistant who has come to bless a patrol. 'Why don't you tell the truth? Why don't you journalists write that this army is exhausted?'

It is a weariness that has created its own culture of superstition. There are vehicle commanders who will not let the infantrymen in the back fall asleep on long operations -- not because they want the men alert, but because, they say, bad things happen when people fall asleep. So the soldiers drink multiple cans of Rip It and Red Bull to stay alert and wired.

But the exhaustion of the US army emerges most powerfully in the details of these soldiers' frayed and worn-out lives. Everywhere you go you hear the same complaints: soldiers talk about divorces, or problems with the girlfriends that they don't see, or about the children who have been born and who are growing up largely without them.

'I counted it the other day,' says a major whose partner is also a soldier. 'We have been married for five years. We added up the days. Because of Iraq and Afghanistan we have been together for just seven months. Seven months … We are in a bad place. I don't know whether this marriage can survive it.'

The anecdotal evidence on the ground confirms what others -- prominent among them General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State -- have been insisting for months now: that the US army is 'about broken'. Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready. Officers educated at the elite West Point academy are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers -- and the problem is expected to worsen.

And it is not only the soldiers that are worn out. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the destruction, or wearing out, of 40 per cent of the US army's equipment, totalling at a recent count $212bn (£105bn).


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, troops, fatigue

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Facts...
Posted by: Captainmagic on Aug 14, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please get your facts right.....fatigue is NOT crippling the American army....straight and simple.....the Iraqi resistance has, was, and is, pulling down the monster that has inflicted itself upon them.

And just who sent this army on it's fool's errand.

When!!!! When, is America going to wake up! What in a gods name have the Americans done to these people? Better still, what had these people done to Americans?..........NOTHING!..thats a big fat NOTHING!.

And what have your soldier's died for in Iraq?.....that's a big fat NOTHING!!

Just because amerika is firmly based in disneyland, it will not excuse it from being held accountable for this barbaric act of butchery against a people who did exactly, what to you?.

Fatigue...Humbug!!!

Captain OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Aye Aye, Captain! Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Facts... Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Facts... Posted by: cvtemptor
» RE: Facts... Posted by: Griallia
» RE: Facts...JOHN Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Facts... Posted by: MAD
» Your talking to me I guess... Posted by: teufelhunde
» By the way Posted by: teufelhunde
Beg pardon?
Posted by: Socrates on Aug 14, 2007 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the purpose of this article? Poor things. They're tired? Yeah, and ...? They're invaders. They're torturers. They are committing the supreme crime of the world. They have no business whatsoever in Iraq. So no crocodile tears here for their tiredness. Iraqis are tired too. Ten times more tired of these American soldiers. They watch their loved ones tortured, murdered, butchered, imprisoned, humiliated, ironically, by these pathetic tired US soldiers. Iraqis see their houses destroyed. They see their sick children with no medicine and forced to drink dirty water. Imagine if these US soldiers had to watch all this brutality for THEIR loved ones back in the US, invaded by a pack of thugs from the other side of the world.

So I don't give a rat's azz that the US soldiers are "tired." When they get tired enough of their dirty, immoral mission; when they get tired of all that blood on their hands, perhaps they'll do the right thing and tell their commanders to kiss their azzes and simply leave Iraq and face the court marshal music with a clear conscience. Short of this, they NEED to be, at the very least, tired.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: cacky
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: teufelhunde
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: Socrates
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: cvtemptor
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: MAD
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: bgann
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: CandianBear
» RE: Beg pardon? Posted by: Whistler
What's the matter Uncle Sam?
Posted by: TT5 on Aug 15, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Feeling a little stretched;=))?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Over there"
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 15, 2007 1:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1917, George M. Cohan wrote the lyrics to this beloved song and it thrived through two world wars. Its inspiration at home, abroad and to the conscripts and volunteers was so notable that FDR awarded Cohan the Congressional Gold Medal in 1941. There was no fatigue in those days because there was a purpose to what was being done and it embraced more than Americans. There hasn't been a purpose since and the world is paying a steep price for the consequences. There can be no song in defense of murder, crimes against humanity, lies, deceptions and greed, unless of course it is a dirge in response to a failed nation that not only perpetrated the crimes but also tired in the process of committing and abetting them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Over there" Posted by: Tom Degan
Be The First One On Your Block To Have Your Boy Come Home In A Box!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 15, 2007 2:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a little topic that very few are addressing at the moment: The Bush administration is scheming to draft American children - yours and mive - into the armed forces. I really hope I'm wrong about this but I don't think that I am. How am I able to make this incredibly bold prediction? It is really evry simple: It is now obvious to any idiot - even our esteemed commander-in-chief - that Donald Rumsfeld's original dream of a lean, compact military was a delusional pipe dream from the very beginning. One-hundred and fifty thousand measly troops to invade and occupy an entire country? What - are they out of their fucking minds???....What am I saying? Of course they are....General Eric Shinseki, early on, said that it couldn't be done an that it would take at least twice that number and then some to achieve any tangible military objective. And what good did all of his prescience, caution and honesty do him? It cost him his career. That's the strange thing about the Bush White House. If you want to succeed, you had better damn well check your honesty at the door, pardner!

Four and a half years ago, on the eve of the stupidest military blunder in American history, the president of the United States broadcast a message for the youth of Iraq: "Don't give your lives for a dying regime". Truth be told, I was shocked that George W. Bush was even capable of such sage advice. It's also something that the youth of America should take to heart: Don't give your for this sick, corrupt and dying regime. And if I may, I would like to add this little pearl to the discussion:

Organize and resist.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The goverment is overdue Posted by: Griallia
» Rumsfeld: Axiom and corollary Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Bringing back the draft does seem like the only option
Posted by: akai ringo on Aug 15, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this article for the first time in last Sunday's issue of "The Observer". Since then, I've read various other pieces that seem to bear out Gates' view that the U.S. will be in Iraq in force for a long time to come, and specifically that President Bush is planning not to bring troops back but to extend and increase the surge at least into next year. Put all this together, and I can't see any realistic alternative to bringing back the draft. And that of course would be likely to lead to a very substantial increase in the number of American troops in Iraq, perhaps even up to Vietnam levels. As an outsider looking at America from thousands of miles away, it certainly seems to me, if I may say so, that it is time for the American people to take charge of their government. Whether the options that they are presented with in 2008 will allow them to do this is another matter. But the next few years should be interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a good option would be to IMPEACH Posted by: kellysgarden
What to do when you cant win a war?
Posted by: TT5 on Aug 15, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Escalate boy! ESCALATE IT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NO draft.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 15, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until yesterday, I was all for a renewed draft. Not to rebuild our exhausted armed services; I wanted the draft to create shared sacrifice in America and forced self-aborbed citizens to actively protest George W.'s insane ocupation of Iraq.

Then I watched Bill Maher on Larry King last night make the case against involuntary enlistment.

Bill's argument made me realize who would enforce a draft: Al Gonzales and his elitist pack of Bush legal lapdogs. Good enough reason, in my mind, to stop any draft movement dead in its tracks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NO draft. Posted by: teufelhunde
Draft
Posted by: Gaubladt on Aug 15, 2007 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we had a draft going into this mess, there would have been 57,000 American dead in Iraq already. The volunteer army, to succeed, requires that soldiers be treated in such a way that they want to re-inlist and encourage their friends to enlist. The only reason it is failing now is because soldiers aren't treated with the respect they deserve by the management and politicians running the show.
The solution to the problem is to limit mandadory tours of duty to one only. And, get the hell out of Iraq now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Draft Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Draft Posted by: teufelhunde
Why invasion and occupation is always doomed to failure.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 15, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is one exception: when the invading force has the support of the local population.

If an army crosses a national border, and all the locals come rushing up to join the army, then both political and military victory is assured. For example, when the US forces landed in France in WWII, the defeat of the Nazi occupiers was assured when the French started raining flowers down on the US troops.

In contrast, once it became clear that the US goals in Iraq were NOT democracy and freedom, but rather even more severe repression than under Saddam as a means of installing a puppet government that would hand control of Iraqi oil over to the US-British petroleum Axis - well, that spurred on the insurgency, and instead of flowers the US troops got IEDs.

The bumbling and idiotic nature of the US military leadership, from Rumsfeld to Petraeus, has many parallels in the military situation in Nazi Germany. Military appointments (such as that of Petraeus) were made on political grounds - this is the Karl Rove / Dick Cheney approach, where 'loyalty to the President' became the litmus test for advancement - competence and intelligence were ignored.

This is all in the Sun Tzu, which is widely misunderstood within anti-war circles as a pro-war manifesto.

Take a few quotes from the Sun Tzu:
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

Well, this is why people are talking about the downfall of the Roman Empire in relation to the future of the US.

Here's a more explicit statement:
"Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

Now, Sun Tzu was talking about warring city states in ancient China. The fact of the matter in Iraq is that there was never a legitimate reason to invade that country - it was all based on lies deliberately generated by the US government and then disseminated to the public via the US corporate media.

This really is the fall of the American Empire that we are seeing, and that's how it will go down in history. Imagine a world without superpowers...I wonder if you can?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah! A military expert! Posted by: teufelhunde
» RE: Yeah! A military expert! Posted by: teufelhunde
» Israelis Posted by: teufelhunde
» RE: Israelis Posted by: leafsong1
Dick Cheney tried to warn us about Iraq 13 years ago.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 15, 2007 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Today, MoveOn.org released a YouTube video of Dick Cheney saying in 1994 that replacing Saddam Hussein's regime would create a quagmire in Iraq and would NOT be worth the lost American lives.

Listen to the Chicken Hawk by clicking on: Cheney on Iraq in 1994. You won't believe your ears!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know how they do it
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 15, 2007 11:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never deployed but I did about a month of "exercises" (simulations) and even those wore me out.

People sleeping in the dirt? Oh yea, you sleep wherever you can whenever you get the chance. 12+ hour shifts and a rollercoaster ride of events that get your heart and adrenaline pumping.

A year to 15 months of that? Yea, I have no idea how they do it. That is the sort of thing that just turns you numb to the world and removes your ego and will from the equation entirely. You're just a warm body with a gun walking around and doing what you're told.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be realistic
Posted by: teufelhunde on Aug 16, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States of America has the most powerful military on the face of the planet. And in four years it has been worn down to nothing? Yeah right. Of the four Marine Corps divisions currently active, how many are in Iraq? I think only one or two so far... And if the US is wearing down, so are the insurgents. Well, actually many of them are dead, seeing as they want to go to Allah and their 100 virgins... But this is pure crap.

I also believe the Democrats and liberals in general must be very happy that our men and women are dying in Iraq, seeing as it only strengthens you politically. The longer we are in Iraq, the more you seem to benefit. Odd. And while men and women who believe in trying to help the Iraqis make their new freedom and democracy work, most of whom are probably not liberals, join up and serve and sacrifice their lives, that means more conservatives dying. Congrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Be realistic Posted by: leafsong1
» DEMS AND REPUBLICANS Posted by: teufelhunde
» RE: DEMS AND REPUBLICANS Posted by: leafsong1
» Some more questions Posted by: teufelhunde
» RE: Some more questions Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Be realistic Posted by: sg
» RE: Be realistic Posted by: teufelhunde
» What is vacuous? Posted by: teufelhunde
War in Iraq
Posted by: teufelhunde on Aug 16, 2007 8:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, thank you for responding to my comment with a logical argument. I am just trying to understand the political situation a little more.

Now, I feel that we did make a HUGE mistake in invading Iraq. It was for all the wrong reasons. I personally would prefer to invade for the right pretenses that they make now (oust Saddam) rather than the whole WMD thing. I don't know whether that was a mistake or a lie, but I hope to God it was a mistake.

However, I feel that now that we are in, now that we have fashioned a somewhat functioning democracy in Iraq, we have a vested interest in maintaining it. I feel that our soldiers and marines are not the bad guys in Iraq for trying to maintain stability and peace. While I will not argue that the war has been badly managed and that some tragedies have occured, I feel that the insurgents have killed far more innocent people than we have. I also thought that Iraq was undergoing a sectarian violence, with Iraqis armed by Iran and the radical Islamofascists and the other crazy Iraqis armed by God knows who on the other. We are caught in the middle.

I also don't understand why Iraqis would be defending themselves against us. Are we going on some genocidal rampage in Iraq. I see images of tanks rolling through Fallujah, Marines pacifying Al Anbar province, but not so much Marines lining up Iraqi children, tying them to each other, lining them up on a bridge, and shooting every other one to save ammunition while the other guy drowns... (I got that from "War of the Rats")

I also heard reports that the surge is working, and that Iraqis are making serious efforts to oust Al Qaeda from their streets. Finally, I heard rumors about oil companies and mercenaries and stuff, but could you provide me with some hard evidence?

Anyways, thanks for responding...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War in Iraq Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: War in Iraq Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: War in Iraq Posted by: leafsong1
» yes, first visit to Alternet Posted by: teufelhunde
A few things to chew on...
Posted by: sg on Aug 16, 2007 9:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, teufelhunde, my friend. Chew on this for a while. You're heart is in the right place but I hear echoes of an earlier post of yours here and you're missing a few important things.

It's a mistake to begin with the 2003 invasion as the beginning of the war with Iraq? When, in fact, we had completely destroyed Iraq's infrastructure in the 1991 Gulf War and then crippled Iraqis economically for 13 years; such that, before the 1991 war, the number one pediatric problem in Iraq was childhood obesity; after which, it became kids dying of easily treatable WATER-BORNE DISEASES (not malnutrition because Saddam was spending money on weapons and not food, as some apologists like to argue).

All of this stuff can be read at length in the arhives of Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. (I'm a freak and read stuff like that). We're talking a half million children under the age of 5, dying of water-borne diseases brought on by U.S. destruction of drinking water supply networks, for example. And then, because of the sanctions they couldn't import the machinery and what not needed to fix such things. They call those "dual-use" items. They also considered medical textbooks, pencils and ambulances "dual use" items; all of which was available in the 661 Sanctions Committee reports that no one but freaks like me paid attention to.

On top of that, we bombed Iraq repeatedly for over a decade after Gulf War I. Anyone who understood even the recent history of U.S.-Iraq relations knew BEFORE the 2003 invasion that there was NO F-IN WAY we would be greeted at liberators, especially considering that those hardest hit in the aftermath of Gulf War I in terms of Saddam's reprisals and the impact of the sanctions, were the Shiites - the very same Shiites who had the most to gain by the destruction of Saddam's regime. Then Bush II comes along and we do exactly that. Get rid of Saddam on behalf of Shiites and then expect them to be grateful for "democracy?"

You don't have to be Bernard Lewis to understand, again, there was NO F-IN WAY we would be greeted as liberators. And you don't have to hear from the experts on that one. Honestly, ask yourself the if-I-were-in-their-shoes question.

In your earlier post you seem to imply a majority of Iraqis want the US military to stay with the following question: Do you base your opinions on the few people who manage to blow up 50 people with one car bomb?

For starters, you could consult the myriad polls and studies on MAJORITY Iraqi public opinion and it's been pretty consistent: they want us the f-out, like yesterday. Also, if you actually study military history, you'll realize that you can't have a guerrilla insurgency without popular civilian support. You can't pull off the kind of bombings and what not that are being carried out in broad daylight under the nose of the most powerful and equipped military on earth without huge public support. That's why you have situations where a group of GIs are walking down the street and are greeted by a sweet grandmother and her grandkids, smiling, waving and hugging the soldiers. The GIs mosey down the street, turn around and realize grandma, grandkids and pretty much everyone else on the block is gone. Then booom! If you're lucky, you live to see a few of your buddies blown into bits. How did everyone but the soldiers know a bomb was about to explode? Three words: civilian support network, leading to another lesson of military history: short of genocide, there's NO military solution to guerrilla insurgencies (Thanks War Nerd). Gen. Petraeus recently said the same thing, damn near word for word.

Now, it's LOGISTICALLY improbable, maybe even impossible, to pull out immediately but unless U.S. war planners want to commit genocide or demonstrate a willingness to - a la Hiroshima - we had better being leaving real soon. But maybe you enjoy meat grinders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A few things to chew on... Posted by: leafsong1