Posted on 05/04/2005 6:15:03 PM PDT by Valin
Media connect Myers' report about strain on US military with lag in recruitment.
Media reports in the US and around the world have taken note of a new classified report from the top US military adviser, which indicates that the US military's current commitments overseas may prevent it from adequately fighting future conflicts. BBC writes that Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "has warned that ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could limit the ability of the US to fight another war."
In a yearly risk assessment report required by Congress, Myers said any future armed conflicts "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage." Myers said the US would still prevail in any future conflict, but "may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision."
The timelines (to winning a new war) may have to be extended and we may have to use additional resources, but that doesn't matter because we're going to be successful in the end.
MSNBC called the assessment "sobering."
Some major US newspapers connected the report to lagging recruitment numbers as further evidence of strain on the military.
"Underscoring the stress facing the armed services," writes The Washington Post, "the Army reported separately [Monday] that its recruiting efforts are continuing to slip, as recruiters nationwide obtained less than 60 percent of the April goal of 6,600 new recruits into the active-duty force." The Post calls Myers' assessment "a rare open acknowledgment that the stresses on the force and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have an impact on other military operations."
A Los Angeles Times editorial suggests that Myers' admission is a refreshing change, which "indicates that common sense continues to have its place."
The blunt honesty of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, is a bracing change from repeated claims by Pentagon civilians and President Bush that everything is fine. After pointing out that "recruiting lags substantially," the Times ends with a reminder about the importance of soldiers vs. high-tech weaponry in the current conflict in Iraq. For all the emphasis in recent years on unmanned aircraft and high-tech weapons, the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq should remind US administrations of the bottom line for armies: feet on the ground. Precision-guided missiles are all but useless against improvised explosive devices at the side of the road and are of no use at all in building democratic institutions. A report from an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program called "The World Today," says that "what the General told the Congress seemed at odds with what he'd told the President ... only last week ...."
The report cited Bush's quote from last Thursday night's press conference.
The person I asked that to, the person I asked that to at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I said 'do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq', and the answer is 'no', he doesn't feel we're limited. Feels like we got plenty of capacity. White House spokesman Trent Duffy, acknowledged the report, but played down its impact.
We are at war, and that level of operations does have some impact on troops. But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively. While most news sources stress Myers' findings that the Iraq war has hampered the military's ability to respond quickly to other potential foes, an article by the American Forces Information Services posted on the Defense Department's website, emphasizes that the US military can still "handle any task."
The story begins this way: "The US military can accomplish all the tasks laid out for it in the National Military Strategy, according to [Myers]."
Another "conventional" war? Maybe. A "total war" for survival of our country? A definite, "Yes."
From what I hear, it's the intelligent, capable ones that get passed over.....the idiots up top are protecting their asses.
More sour grapes?
The drop bomb crowds are not paying attention to history. Our next near term competitor is China. Were are we going to be flying from to get there to drop bombs? And for how long? We did not have enough munitions for Iraq, a small country compared to china.
You only win wars with boots on the ground. Anyone that thinks we are going to nuke them till they glow needs to put down the crack pipe.
We do not have the troops to fight two land wars.
And the gear is currently in Iraq, it is functioning, but beat up.
Meyers downplayed the situation.
We will be out of Iraq sooner based on the recruiting issues it is causing.
But on the flip side first term enlistments are at an all time high.
your correct. We have not faced a military of almost equal strength since WW2. Life and death fighting here in America we win no problem. However, fighting in another country over something is were the MSM really kills us. One of the things we had better learn is to "win fast" or the media will rip us apart.
But what percentage of combat ground forces?
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.