I have done a lot of reading over the years on different aspects of our military preparedness, but I wouldn't classify myself as an expert. I try to apply logic to overall trends, considering articles I've read on a variety of topics, that impact our future military needs. What is appropriate? Are we using good judgement? Are we committing mistakes that others have made in the past?
On one hand, I'm not sure we have enough troops and have wondered why we don't increase the number in each branch of the military (or perhaps the Army & Marines for a ground war). On the other hand, I know we have a lot of troops in countries that we're moving (Germany as an example). Do you think we need to add to the number we currently allot for each branch, move troops from other areas, and/or both?
After reading article after article that addresses our difficulties in posting adequate troops to fulfill our military needs in Iraq, I have to come down on the side that we have underfunded, undermanned, underequiped and undersupplied our military. This isn't intended as a slam against Bush, except with regard to his commission's assessment that a one theater preparedness strategy was preferable. Bill Clinton is the president that allowed our military to slip to the point that a one theater preparedness was about all that was viable.
Right now we have opertations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I still consider this one theater of operation, even though you could probably make the case that it is somewhat in excess of one theater. For all intents, we're having a problem manning these operations.
That's not to say that our troops aren't top notch. It's just addressing the fact that they are stretched too thin.
A lot of people lament the fact that we have troops in Japan, Korea and Germany. I do not. These forward positions are positions that would be hard to reinstall once they were withdrawn. These bases are utilized more than, or are more stretegicly necessary than many people give them credit for.
If the U.S. didn't have a large presence in that theater, North Korea would have probably initiated hostilities long before this. If the U.S. didn't have it's base in Germany, we would not have medical facilies as close to the middle east as we do. I value these bases, even at this late date.
As for which branches of the military should be increased, I would rather leave that to the Department of Defense. There will always be a need for large numbers of ground troops. We are never going to have a more wide open space type of war, than in Iraq. Even there, we find it difficult to interrupt the movements of terrorists even with the incredible technological advances that we've utilized there. I also believe that our Navy should be kept in the 450 ship range rather than sub 300. I believe our carrier taskforces should be kept between seven and ten rather than five or six.
While I support a two-theater level of preparedness, I do believe we might face a temporary third theater at times. We need to be ready prior to that, not in a reactive mode. If we plan on reactive modes, the burden of elevated casualties and extreme hardship will rest on our troops. That is NOT an acceptable strategy for me.
I'm not so much quibeling over the exact number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq right now. I do think better rotations would keep the troops more refreshed and better capable of coping and fighting the fight in Iraq. If we needed to inject another 50,000 troops for a short period of time, it would be much easier.
I remember hearing we needed to be able to fight 2 wars at the same time - - -but can we do that. I also know that there is a "Plan" for our military to be lighter and more streamline & agile (I thought this meant the equipment as much or more than the troops, though I see that they could go hand in hand).
I do believe that we have made major strides in technology and rapid deployments to a certain extent. While these are nice, they are only the first steps in major operations. Of course the technology would extend into the larger overall operation as campaigns developed, but the rapid deployments troops would be augmented by ground troops. Yes, we can win wars very quickly, as in Iraq, but keeping the peace while mop-ups and new governments become viable, takes time. We're never going to eliminate the need for this. Kidding ourselves that rapid deployments are going to eliminate the dirty grunt work for a few years is just dilusional IMO.
If we do not have a two or two plus theater force, what happens when we mire down in places like Iraq? Well, our hands are tied until we can extricate ourselves. And this would likely mean comprimises having to be made that might undo all our hard work to that point.
We may have to go into North Korea. We may need to back up our allies elsewhere? Planning for these contingencies in advance is essential IMO. Not only does it prepare us for times when we need those contingencies, it lengthens the periods between our having to utilize them.
As I said, I'm not an expert. I try to think strategicly, but that doesn't mean there aren't other oppinions out there, and that some of them might not be better than my own. Take it for what it is.
A Seattle Conservative... I'll be it gets lonely up there.
My only expressed complaints about Iraq have been that we have shown excessive concern for collateral damages. Insurgents holed up in a Mosque? Level it.
A Seattle Conservative... I'll be it gets lonely up there.
You have no idea! Luckily some of my family members are conservative, so at least I have a few people to bounce my thoughts and gripes off of - - and now I have the Freepers :-) - You all are great! (I'm only a newbie of a few weeks - but have enjoyed reading and participating in the posts!)
This was a very thoughtful response - thanks very much, DoughtyOne, much appreciated!