The Army We Need

New York Times ^ | Sunday, November 19, 2006

[MinorityRepublican]

One welcome dividend of Donald Rumsfeld’s departure from the Pentagon is that the United States will now have a chance to rebuild the Army he spent most of his tenure running down.

Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t like lessons the Army drew from Vietnam — that politicians should not send American troops to fight a war of choice unless they went in with overwhelming force, a clearly defined purpose and strong domestic backing. He didn’t like the Clintonian notion of using the United States military to secure and rebuild broken states.

And when circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq called for just the things Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t like, he refused to adapt, letting the Army, and American interests, pay the price for his arrogance.

So one of the first challenges for the next defense secretary and the next Congress is to repair, rebuild and reshape the nation’s ground forces. They need to renew the morale and confidence of America’s serving men and women and restore the appeal of career military service for the brightest young officers.

That will require building a force large enough to end more than three years of unsustainably rapid rotations of units back into battle, misuse of the National Guard, overuse of the Reserves and conscription of veterans back into active service.

Congress also needs to work harder at rebuilding the links between the battlefront and the home front that a healthy democracy needs. That does not require reinstating the draft — a bad idea for military as well as political reasons. It requires a Congress willing to resume its proper constitutional role in debating and deciding essential questions of war and peace. If Congress continues to shirk that role, expanding the ground forces would invite some future administration to commit American forces recklessly to dubious wars of choice.

[abigkahuna]

I thank you for your service and your insights. You know, sometimes I wonder about the postering here in the States regarding the war--on the side that supports the war in Iraq ( i include myself in that category) I am reminded of that old 1930s movie about WW1 from the German point of view ( the name escapes me at the moment), in where the citizens are fully supportive of the war to the point of being bombastic, they didn't understand the reality of the trenches. So I wonder if those of us that support the war are falling into that trap....but then we have your insight to provide a counterpoint to the constant barrage of negative spin.

So I thank you for your service. I too served in this man's army. Went to Gern]many, sat on a tank and drank ber and chased frauliens--gov't tax dollars at work. No one shot at me so I left after four.

40 years--now thats a stint!

[endthematrix]

This is one frightening article.

So we are to enlarge the military and keep them on every street corner (Clinton will get his 100,000 cops) until some nation attacks American interests? It will cost billions NYSlimes say. No problem just cut out Halliburton, Air Force fighters, Navy destroyers from the budget! And we don't some President to determine how and when our forces, but should allow Congress - that fat and bloated degradation of an institution to squabble and nuance a war.

[Gaffer]

Yes, but the Democrats see that 4+% as billions of dollars with which they can buy VOTES....

[Gaffer]

I don't think they (Rangel included) ever intended for a draft to be implemented. It was a scare tactic designed to instil in the American public that things were so bad in Iraq that a volunteer force couldn't handle it and that a general population draft would be necessary. Nothing makes a liberal crap his pants more than the thought of forced military service.

[KarinG1]

Nobody has called me....

The VA sent me a letter, but all it said was that a computer with my personal information on it had been stolen.

[Prodigal Son]

I don't believe in the 'repeating history' thing. History never repeats itself. It might run in a fashion that is similar to something in the past but there will always be new factors involved that make each situation totally unique. This situation is no different. You can point back at Vietnam and see similarities but it is folly to assume the same solutions to Vietnam would apply in this situation.

We can use history as a rough guideline but only if we keep in mind that our own situation is new and unique and might require a different solution than any history has to offer us.

That the media are reporting in a negative manner is totally mundane and predictable. Nothing new or amazing there. The Pentagon used this to their advantage in the build up to and during the initial invasion in 2003. That things wouldn't go according to plan was also an elementary assumption (things never go according to plan).

If President Bush had hoped to have Iraq and Afghanistan all 'tidied up' by the elections, this was a faulty assumption. I have yet to understand why he sacked Rumsfeld in the manner he did. You don't stand by a guy 100% and then turn around and fire him. If he really believed in Rumsfeld he should have stuck with him- come what may.

What the administration needs to focus on now is committing us to a policy in the Middle East that will be impossible for any subsequent president or congress to withdraw from. Personally, I think that was already accomplished when we invaded Iraq. To withdraw now would be the ultimate humiliation for America and I don't even think the democrats are that stupid (although I know some Freepers will comment on that one).

If we withdraw, we'll be right back over there again in no time at all. This is obvious. Must be obvious to even the most embittered liberal.

[endthematrix]

"Nothing makes a liberal crap his pants more than the thought of forced military service."

I disagree. The Kerry plank included compulsory national service.

Nothing makes Elitists more happy than compulsory service.

[Gaffer]

I don't remember it that way back when I was in the military in 68, particularly those who are not the Democratic Elite. But, it could be different now.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

It's possible that Rumsfeld simply attempted to resign yet again, and this time could not be convinced to stick around.

[Prodigal Son]

Why would he resign if he's doing a great job?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter anymore. He's out.

What matters is coming up with a solution on the ground in Iraq. I don't care who has the solution I just want one that works. If Kofi effing Anan has a solution I would be interested to hear it. If Hillary has a solution that would work I don't mind listening to that either. If the French have a workable solution, I am all ears (assume 5 million 'F--k the French' and 'they will surrender' posts). But honestly, I don't care where the solution comes from, I just want one that works.

[MNJohnnie]

Another completely ignorant Dincon article.

Maybe instead of listening to screaming of Dinosaurs wanting to rebuild a Cold War Military, they should listen to Gen Abzaid. In his testimony to the US Senate this week, he told John McCain this Dinco total war dogma expressed here is utter stupidity.

As every ground commander in Iraq said to Gen Abzaid, More troops are not the answer. Doing that merely pushes the Iraqis to the margins. It would lead to more US Casualties while totally alienating the locals. It is exactly the policy followed in Vietnam this idiot would follow.

So we are supposed to listen Junk Media columnists and ignore the professional military actually on the ground in Iraq?

Seems the Know Nothings are also seem to be the Learn Nothings.

Lurch off to the tar pit Dinosaurs. The adults have no time for your ignorant rantings anymore.

[AmeriBrit]

We can only talk about the past for so long before we have to move on and accept responsibility for the current situation.

---

But to just bypass such outrageous blatant lies without loudly commenting is just the same as lying ourselves and giving in to the 'Slimes'.

[AmeriBrit]

You've been reading the NYSlimes too often and paying too many visits to DU.

1. Rummy did NOT get fired.....he resigned. PERIOD.

2. President Bush did NOT expect the war to be 'all tidied up' by election day. He said from the start it would take years and he's repeated that many many times. Try listening to him instead of just repeating RAT propaganda.

[screaming eagle2]

Personally,Ithink the Army needs ,oh 3 or four more Airborne units,but that's just me.

[leadpenny]

Ranger, SF, Special Ops, and maybe Air Assault, but Airborne? There was a jump into Kandahar early on, Panama, Granada and one in Vietnam. What's the demand for straight airborne troops right now? Appears to me the 101st and the 82nd are being used as regular grunts right now?

Don't get me wrong, Airborne qualification should continue to be part of the Army Infantry and as needed in the other services.

[R. Scott]

My biggest objection to the way the war in Iraq is being run is that our military forces are being used as a reactive police force and not an active military force.

[Recon Dad]

You know I can agree with some of your point, but disagree with your first, "History never repeats itself". If you look back to Vietnam you find our troops fighting a war in a "politically correct" manner. Our foes had safe haven in Laos, Cambodia and we restrained our attacks on North Vietnam, All due to political considerations

Fast forward to 2006 Iran, Syria and Pakistan are "politically protected" areas. This is repeating the mistakes of the past and our chances of success are as good as they were in 1970.

You have got to make them understand that they are not safe anywhere.

[Steel Wolf]

As every ground commander in Iraq said to Gen Abzaid, More troops are not the answer.

If you believe that, I've got a ski resort in Tikrit to sell you. Cheap.

This is a deeply politicized war, and the military commanders in Iraq understand that with greater clarity than you can imagine. It would be abject career suicide for them to ask for resources outside of the party line limits, even privately. The Pentagon doesn't want to hear it, and they don't want their officers to think it.

Just because they run a much tighter ship than the Republicans doesn't mean they all agree.

[Steel Wolf]

You're right about Clinton, of course, but it is noticeable that the military has been reshaped around special forces operations but not actually rebuilt to pre-Clinton levels overall.

I doubt that the NYT is proposing we build the military back up to pre-Clinton levels, but you raise an excellent point. Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr cut the military far down from the 80s levels we enjoyed, but President Bush has yet to build them back. Blaming President Clinton for over-cutting the military was a very fair criticism in 2001. In 2005, not so much.

[TADSLOS]

That will require building a force large enough to end more than three years of unsustainably rapid rotations of units back into battle, misuse of the National Guard, overuse of the Reserves and conscription of veterans back into active service.

Unadulterated tripe.