« Previous · Home · Next »
Short Term Strategy
By John
With the Senate showdown on Iraq in the pipes, there's been a substantial increase in the pundit-driven noise level over the debate. The best I've read so far comes from Michael Tanji at Threats Watch:
A firm date for withdrawal of US forces is just another way of establishing a terrorist-liberation-day in Iraq. US military might is the only thing that is keeping a relative lid on violence in Iraq. A date-certain for withdrawal would bring about a temporary drop in violence, but only because terrorists would be taking advantage of the down-time to prepare for the slaughter that was to come.We successfully defeated the old Iraq. What the surge is doing is trying to set the conditions for the rise of a new Iraq. Benchmarks are essential for that rise. But what consequences do we impose absent progress? For some the answer seems to be “progress or die,” because that is what will happen if we leave prematurely. The results-now-or-else caucus want Iraq to be post-war Germany or Japan: at best an apples to oranges comparison given the size of the forces involved and the differences in the nature of the two wars.
More troops would allow the US to exert more control over the security situation in Iraq, but caps on troop levels are a key factor in the strategies of most defeatists. The leaving behind of a token force of trainers is a viable option, but only if the security situation affords them a level of protection that does not result in a repeat of Little Big Horn. Having the Secretary of Defense “certify” that every troop sent forward is perfectly trained and outfitted is the Sarbanes-Oxley-fication of war. Ask any business executive what a pleasure work has been since that legislation passed and you will have some idea of what it will take for the US to defend its interests and principles.
Tanji, a career spook, also runs an excellent blog called Haft of the Spear in addition to his Threats Watch postings. Read it daily.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1097
Comments
Terrorist liberation day errr withdrawal. Dems should call it what it is.
As to strengh levels, has the budget been allocated to increase the size of the military? Also, what are these numbers compared to and based on?
Also, chalk up part of the problem to the left's successful efforts in removing Military Arts and Sciences from the universities and as a serious study.
In addition, what were the rotations during WWII? Civil War? Indian conflicts? I guess what I am trying to figure out is the balance between an experienced combat veteran/warrior and being battle fatigued.
Does any have current numbers as to size of military and % of those who have been deployed?
Yes, Michael is very good on this stuff.
I'll second the notion about reading his site as often as possible.
It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
More U.S. troops would allow us to exert better control, yes. But, please, praytell where do you think we'll get those troops?
I'm not going to lie... the Army is just about stretched as far as it's going to go. 15-month rotations CANNOT be the rule... and now they're talking about 18-month rotations.
The only other option I could see is boost the Marine contingent, but that would involve extending them more than the 7-month long tours that they do. While 7-months looks better than 15, from what I understand, the Corps can't cough up all that more people either.
The administration had better find a solution... and soon. Pretty soon there ain't going to be a military left to send. May's recruiting numbers for the Army were down 8%. For June, it was 15%. July is anticipated to be even worse.