Whenever asked why more troops have not been deployed to Iraq to quell the ever spiraling violence he always answers with some version of "If the commanders ask for them they will get them, and I trust their judgement."
This is false on two three. First it puts the onus completely on someone concerned about their career to contradict their commander-in-chief. The preassure to not contradict the political storyline of the administration must be enoromous. Before the war General Eric Shinseki (sp?) was forced to retire nearly 2 years early because he suggested that "several thousand" troops would be needed for complete control of Iraq. Considerring that there have never been more than 200 thousand troops in Iraq, and the state of the country has never even approached being under control, Shinseki seems like a profet now, and he was forced from his job for it.
Secondly, it absolves Bush of any responsibility for either the troop levels, or by extension, the security situation. "All the generals have to do is ask" puts those generals completely in control, except they aren't.
The last, but most damning thing about this glib toss-away line is exemplified in the following L.A. Times Article.
There are only so many troops in the US military. A sizable portion of those troops are committed in Europe, Korea and Japan, and those numbers are treaty regulated.
That leaves only so many troops. To be combat effective, troops must be rotated into and out of combat situations. A human simply cannot fight effectively without a significant break (usually at between 12 and 18 months of deployment). This has been true in all wars from Korea to Vietnam to the present. Because of the limited numbers of troops, we have been forced to deply the "Reserves" completely, and also the "National Guard" who's primary mission is domestic.
Even with all of those measures, there are not enough troops to keep up the current deployment schedule. The men and material are breaking down faster than they can be replaced.
Keep that in mind as you look to possible future commitments.
Think of those loyal, devoted souls who for the best of reasons have volunteered to serve their country.
This is false on two three. First it puts the onus completely on someone concerned about their career to contradict their commander-in-chief. The preassure to not contradict the political storyline of the administration must be enoromous. Before the war General Eric Shinseki (sp?) was forced to retire nearly 2 years early because he suggested that "several thousand" troops would be needed for complete control of Iraq. Considerring that there have never been more than 200 thousand troops in Iraq, and the state of the country has never even approached being under control, Shinseki seems like a profet now, and he was forced from his job for it.
Secondly, it absolves Bush of any responsibility for either the troop levels, or by extension, the security situation. "All the generals have to do is ask" puts those generals completely in control, except they aren't.
The last, but most damning thing about this glib toss-away line is exemplified in the following L.A. Times Article.
There are only so many troops in the US military. A sizable portion of those troops are committed in Europe, Korea and Japan, and those numbers are treaty regulated.
That leaves only so many troops. To be combat effective, troops must be rotated into and out of combat situations. A human simply cannot fight effectively without a significant break (usually at between 12 and 18 months of deployment). This has been true in all wars from Korea to Vietnam to the present. Because of the limited numbers of troops, we have been forced to deply the "Reserves" completely, and also the "National Guard" who's primary mission is domestic.
Even with all of those measures, there are not enough troops to keep up the current deployment schedule. The men and material are breaking down faster than they can be replaced.
Keep that in mind as you look to possible future commitments.
Think of those loyal, devoted souls who for the best of reasons have volunteered to serve their country.
posted by Bluefin at
6:36 PM
1 Comments:
Force transformation and Battle planning are two distinctly different things. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, "you go to war with the Army you have".
I think the force transformation efforts underway at the Pentagon are largely right on. There is no doubt that one of the concerns about Shinseki was that he was "old army". I don't give the voices of generals any more weight than you do, and I think getting into that misses the thrust of my point.
I would like to focus on your last comment about Bush's responsibility. This is largely about the symantics that the President is using, rather than an argument over the facts of the military structure.
I aggre with your assertion that if Bush had it to do himself, he would commit more troops. But he can't. Unfortunately that leaves a paradox. Bush uses the verbal construction "if the generals ask for more troops, then more will be sent". This gives a specific impression that:
- The situation is under control. If it were not, the generals would ask for the resources to control it.
- The Military has the resources available should the need arise.
- This state of affairs can continue indefinitely
Now all of these impressions are usefull for different reasons. I am not a fan of making the limitations of our military known to the world any more than the next guy. But the bottom line is that "if the generals ask..." is just really not based in reality. The generals don't ask for more because they know that there is no more. If more were sent this rotation, then many less would be available in a year or more, and the end date of the conflict is uncertain.
Its the disingenuiousness of the state ment, and the clear intent to paint an unrealistic picture of our capability and the situation on the ground I object to.
Bush is trying to ensure that in 30 years (when noone will remember the name of the commanders), he is not the one who is blamed for not doing more.
By
Bluefin, at 1:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home