Posted on 08/06/2003 12:25:04 PM PDT by Sparta
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Donald Rumsfeld can study the issue of active-duty troop strength all he want but it won't change the obvious: U.S. land forces are two divisions short of being able to carry out effectively its present responsibilities.
Winning wars is not enough. We must also be able to maintain the peace globally and win the peace after the battles have been fought. It is clear that we don't have sufficient troops on the ground in Afghanistan; we don't have sufficient combat troops in reserve to handle a serious conflict on the Korean Peninsula; we are running around the world trying to pry troops from any and all countries we can to fill out deployments to Iraq; and we are deploying our reserve forces at unprecedented levels.
Instead of addressing the problem, Rumsfeld's team will be studying how to "privatize" base security and non-combat jobs now performed by uniformed troops. They will soon discover, however, that only a small percentage of these non-combat jobs can be safely given over to non-military personnel and that the rest are not civilian-jobs-in-the-making, but tasks military personnel carry out for good reason--and, as such, require a military chain of command. Like any large bureaucracy, the Pentagon undoubtedly does not operate in the most efficient manner possible. And, to the extent one can, gross inefficiencies need to be addressed. But wringing the system of inefficiencies will not in fact solve the current crisis in end strength.
Rumsfeld's apparent strategy is to hope that today's high-level of deployments is more an aberration than the norm. But this runs counter to the broad implications of the National Security Strategy set out by the White House in September 2002. There will not be a return to the so-called "era of strategic pause" anytime soon. And it is a dangerous matter to pronounce a strategy that one cannot support safely and with confidence militarily.
Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century.
I like Rummy, but he's a hair's breadth away from becoming a new Robert McNamara. Conservatives must take him to task for his flawed vision. No Democrats have a sufficient understanding of military affairs and geopolitics for them to make any worthwhile contribution in this regard.
How about we instead retract all the Clinton-era nonsense that Slick got us into, and then we'll only need one more division.
Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project for the New American Century
That explains much.
We need more, not fewer, active divisions (as well as expanding the AF, Navy and Marines)
I agree entirely.
That's a crock. Yeah, we do need more combat strength. But it is an absolute fact that we have a LOT of positions filled by military personnel right here in the US that are never going to be forward deployed. Ever. And almost all of them could be filled by civilian contractors with security clearances. Anyone who has actually been in the military can tell you that.
Anyone who doesn't think so, think: pick, pack, ship, clean, guard, repair, maintain, and paper processing.
Article 3 Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
I can tell you where you can shove your treason allegations.
Its all fine and good to talk about how to "fix it" when you haven't lived it.
Perhaps we should emulate the old Roman model and move the wife and kids to the foreign base. Then the forward deployment is not as much an issue. But of course -- that doesn't apply to long sea tours. And it comes with the hazard that in a place like S. Korea the family might end up in the combat zone. Perhaps the ultimate approach is just to recognize that combat personnel should not be married. Otherwise, too bad, live with the long "away" times.
We have far too much reliance on the Guard and Reservists. I had a whole lot more respect for Reservists 7 months ago than I do now. We need more active duty troops. Some should be pulled from their clinton-era assignments, but we still need more active duty troops.
Are we catching a theme here?
And if you dare imply that I'm a traitor then I'll have to question your ancestry. Got it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.