Schroeder links to this WaPo article about Rummy's address in anticipation of the Quadrennial Defense Review. As PGR aptly puts it:
...the Quadrennial Defense Review...conveniently ignores what may be the lasting legacy of the Bush administration's abuse of troops in Iraq.
The emasculation of the military for a questionable purpose has converted the military into a thin green line. Recall that it took many years for the U.S. military to rehabilitate itself after the demoralizing impact of the Vietnam War.
The United States can ill afford to entertain such a grandiose vision of empire. The Army War College released a report last year bringing into focus its concern that the United States' economic competitiveness might be eroded by the Bush administration's fetish with a never-ending war without defined goals.
Indeed. Meanwhile, the Post article notes the mule-headed insistence of Team Bush to conflate Al Qaeda to the level of Nazi Germany and/or the USSR, which proves either they don't have a fucking clue, or they're more than willing to lie in order to further short-term political gains.
Al Qaeda IS dangerous--and has become MORE dangerous thanks to the morons captaining Team Bush. But bin Laden--or Zawahiri--are neither Hitler nor Lenin, despite Donald's incessant clucking.
The inability to understand the limited support for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists among the population stretching from Indonesia to North Africa is a major reason WHY "The War Against Terror" has been such a dud...and, on a more ominous note, perhaps that's what Team Bush wants: a way to keep the war economy going in the absence of the Soviet threat. Which means, again, they're willing to lie to the public--and drag the nation down--in order to facilitate short term economic cronyism (see Halliburton).
A genuine strategy against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism would logically seek to ally with the VAST majority of people in the region (actually, more of a superregion) who have as little use for kooks like bin Laden as we in the West have for kooks like Eric Rudolph. Instead, Team Bush has stupidly adopted it's OWN bullying stance of "you're either with us or against us." A genuine strategy against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism would also understand the difference between a bin Laden and a Saddam Hussein--the latter, a thug, to be sure, but decidedly NOT a threat (more on that in a minute). We may not like thugs (although, as As'ad Abu Khalil points out, we deal with SOME thugs all the time, like in "Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Algeria, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, etc.").
Finally, a genuine strategy against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism would certainly NOT involve childlike foot stamping insistence for war in Iraq, which has damaged both US credibility AND the US military beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
On the subject of the US military, John Murtha's response to the Bush SOTU is worth looking at in its entirety, but I'll cite some especially relevant passages here:
...this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.
Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.
Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."
But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.
Rummy--and his nominal boss--really ARE doing a heckuva job...at screwing up.
No comments:
Post a Comment