|
« Wars of Choice |
Main
| The Decay Continues »
January 25, 2005
If Not Now, When?
So the Army now tells us it's planning on maintaining the current level of troops in Iraq through 2006. This does not necessarily mean that the level will stay at 150,000 throughout that time, but the Army is going to assume that it will to make sure that it can meet those requirements. Which is to say it will continue to rotate troops in and out of Iraq on a 12-18 month basis while asking permission to keep reservists on active duty beyond the two years currently permitted. There will be no request for additional end strength.
It is time for Congress and the Administration to put up or shut up. If we are at war, as it certainly seems, then we need to field a force suitable to wage war. That means building two new divisions to bear the burden of the Army's ever-expanding workload. The Army has already said it's planning on maintaining current levels through 2006, meaning that a new division or two could be available by the end of that period. There can be no more excuses regarding the time it takes to raise new forces; were the Army to put the effort in, we could raise two combat divisions in a year. It wouldn't be easy, but it is certainly possible.
So why doesn't the Army ask for more troops? Why do our leaders insist on straining the reserve component past the breaking point? For the age old reason: money. Fielding two new divisions would be expensive, and that money would not be available for training, force modernization, maintenance, or any of the myriad other requirements that clamor for funding in a modern military. The Army's leadership is being asked to do too much with to little, and rather than crippling our future abilities, they are trying to balance current and future needs along a razor's edge. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests they have gone too far in favor of worrying about the future at the expense of the present.
Which means it's time for someone in Congress or in the Administration to step forward and resolve the issue. Civilians have ultimate control over the military in our country; they must not be afraid to use that power when it is appropriate. It's time to find the necessary funds to pay for an expansion of the Army while still providing it with the ability to modernize, and only Congress can do that. With another two years (or more) of occupation duties looming, there is no better time to act than now.
Posted at January 25, 2005 08:25 PM
I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/960
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference If Not Now, When?:
» Where's the beef? from Why are all the good names gone...?
If military action is going to remain a "leg" in this new strategic triad, then why has the Bush Administration so adamantly refused to permanently expand our ground forces? [Read More]
Tracked on January 28, 2005 04:41 AM
It's not about money. The Army has always wanted more, but you have to go with the Army you have (not my words). It's the infallible civilians who have been telling them they just don't know how to manage their existing forces in a modern, optimal fashion.
Let me predict what Gen. Luck is going to report:
"Yes, we're going to need to stay though 2006. Iraq would have already reached neo-Utopia by now except for the fact that the borders are so porous. Just give me more troops and we can shut down the new Ho Chi Minh Trails from Damascus and Tehran."
By the fall, Condi will be talking about Iranian Mushroom clouds and we'll be told that we lost Vietnam only because our enemies had sanctuary, and Syria and Iran are really just Cambodia and Laos.
Posted by: Steve at January 26, 2005 01:47 AM
Lets not blame all of this on the civilians. Their excuse to date has been that no general has asked for more troops. If this is true, then it seems to me that some general officer, somewhere, should forget aboout the next star and do the right thing, i.e., ask for the troops that most everyone else seems to think are needed.
Posted by: Wolfhound at January 26, 2005 05:39 AM
How many more troops, really, could we sustain in an Iraq deployment? Shinseki implied we needed 350-500,000 (the "Kosovo/Bosnia math" applied to Iraq's population). We flat don't have the troops for that, do we?
Posted by: Jim Henley at January 26, 2005 05:43 AM
We could only retain 300,000+ troops in Iraq if we were willing to go to a full wartime status where the majority of the Army was in Iraq until the fighting ended. Possible in theory, but politically impossible to sell.
Posted by: Andrew at January 26, 2005 07:31 AM
I think the time is long past for a suit to stand up and speak. None of them defended Gen. Shinseki (he was, after all, one of those namby-pamby politically correct Clinton appointments, right?) when Rummy and Wolfie roasted him over that "wildly of the mark" several-hundred-thousand-troops-needed-for-occupation testimony.
It should have been apparent then that the general staff has about as much loyalty to the truth as their Vietnam-era brethren. Promotion will require full acceptance of the faith-based civilian strategy.
Don't worry. Gen. Luck will do as instructed and provide the cover needed for the next invasion under the guise of "protecting" the borders.
Posted by: Steve at January 26, 2005 12:58 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
|
