So Much For General Pace

What a bunch of cowards are, apparently, the Joint Chiefs. I don't mean cowardly in the sense of wanting to avoid a battle in Iraq by suggesting a draw down to protect the over all health of the military. But because if the only way to protect your military is to not use it when needed, then the problem lies somewhere else. And none of our politicians, nor it would seem, our top Generals, have the courage to fight that battle.

We either have to increase military spending enough to provide even more incentives geared toward significantly driving up enlistment, or we need the Draft. And we should be increasing military spending as a function of the percentage of GDP no matter what. Bringing the boys home to protect the health of the military is a losing man's gamble.

What good is having a so-called strong and healthy military if your enemies know it isn't large enough to handle an extended difficult deployment? Post Vietnam, our Generals have continued to become more and more politically oriented. At least in part, I think we're watching the overall decline of our military as a result. Though the root of the problem continues to be feckless politicians on both sides of the aisle who won't make the case for a larger, better financed military.

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.

Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.

Comments

[Phoenix]

"...is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half,..."

The games people play even in war. Is this a shot across Maliki's brow?

[chris]

Bwahaha!! Now your General Pace is a 'coward'. Its hard to keep up with your heroes!! I say replace him IMMEDIATELY with a patriot and REAL troop supporter. My vote is for Terry Gain.

Surge off!

[TheSpartan]

"we need the Draft"

Rangel is that you?

[Fred Beloit]

Here are some new recruits Mr christamfordmum could really take a shine to.

http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=1151557602

[Ed]

A draft is a great idea and a perfect way to end the war. Let's go for it

[seekeronos]

Most of our generals are career politicians. You really can't even make Brigadier w/o being able to do some serious finessing and back scratching of one kind or another.

What needs to happen is for the POTUS and the Pentagon to give the generals in the field a complete "operational carte blanche" to get the job done.

Ask questions later.

As for a draft... I don't think that is the way to go. A better way would be to pre-empt federal income tax on all combat veterans and current deployed troops, starting with regulars and then on down to Reserve and NG deployed troops -- 10 years of pre-emption for every year in a combat theatre served.

That, and pumping some more cash into re-enlistment bonuses and extending TRICARE to provide more thorough insurance coverage to combat vets rotating back from OCONUS.

And lastly, upgrading tanks to use canister shot (think gigantic shotgun = many dead Islamists thronging the tanks) pro'lly won't hurt. At least not us. :)

[ajacksonian]

Unfortunately the old fashioned draft, like for the military only, would be replaced by a general services draft. Such are the aims of Rangel, Kerry, Murtha, etc. They want, basically, a two year mandatory forced labor Congressional workforce.

So, instead of *that*, how about the President strip out EUCOM and half the ready-reserve of PACOM? There are 115,000 serving in EUCOM and, for the life of me, I really can't see the point. If Germany, Italy, France and such need us there, the question arises: for what? As for PACOM, what with the S. Koreans basically knowing they can handle NoKo, slowly leaving Japan by agreement (which is going on already), the major sink of personnel is in base maintenance, ship maintenance and logistics. We have 100,000 'forward deployed', so out of the 200,000 remaining, take half and put them into the rotation for Iraq/Afghanistan. The 70,000 or so we have for the Caribe/S. America is about right for keeping tabs on the Tri-Border Area, FARC, Shining Path and folks like Jamaat al-Muslimeen in Trinidad. And when I say 'strip out EUCOM' I mean everything save base personnel and medical staff for the wounded and think about seriously talking with the Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians and such to relocate those out of Germany.

All of that gets you 200,000 to add into the rotation cycle.

President can do that whenever he wants. And, really, outside of the Philippines and a few other hot spots, what we have is a personnel management problem from the top... we live with what Congress gives us for force size and they will do everything they can to get a workforce that cannot say 'no' to them.

It is time to start changing the focus from 'well rested troops' to 'combat veteran troops' across the entire force structure. If something *does* hit the pot, that is the best way to get a new fighting force up to speed: combat veterans that know the ropes and can lead by example. Most of the history of the US Armed Forces are those of volunteer forces. Outside of the Civil War, WWI and WWII plus the first decades of the Cold War, the draft was unknown. There is a long, long list of wars fought by volunteers. Starting at the Revolution, and Washington couldn't get conscription past Congress when he was President, as much as he wanted that. What we see is mismanagement on the part of the Executive and Legislative branches right now.

Personally I want Congress far, far, far away from getting their grubby fingers into telling the American People where to spend a couple of years of their lives... I can foresee bridge building in Alaska, the new Byrd backroad highways, and all sorts of other little things to please the Legislative. Save the draft for World Wars that the US will admit to being in. We are not up to doing that yet, and this President is not making that case.

Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and FARC just might make that case, along with Abu Sayyaff and few other organizations less savory. Until then get a combat veteran force... we need *that* across the board now.

[seekeronos]

Ajacksonian makes a good point.

Germany is well able to take care of itself, and we should disband EUCOM in its entirety and transfer those troops to CENCOM. The only reason I can see us still there is post-cold war jitters about Germany getting any weird ideas about smacking other countries around.

A strong Germany (and by extension: a strong EU) would prove an excellent deterrent and bastion against Russkie imperialism, and a strong Japan to contain Russia and Red China on their side of the planet.

As well as continuing to encourage Japan to re-arm itself, and possibly even pursuing a nuclear deterrent against the ChiComs.

Meanwhile, we get the extra 200K troops to sit on top of Iraq and probably Iran for the next 100 years.

[Philip McDaniel]

Ajacksonian;
Excellent post. A pleasure to read someone who knows what he is talking about.

[crazy]

Let's not get too far ahead of the story. First, it's called a surge because the reinforcements that were sent are temporary forces and will rotate home sometime next year anyway. Second, let's not be too surprised that the prior leadership (Pace, Casey, Abizaid, etc) favor a smaller US footprint in Iraq - they always did. The ultimate question, however, is what to do about the size and composition of both the total force and the deployed force in the years ahead. That's where the Bush administration's determination to do more and more with a smaller and more technological force is not proving to be the best idea for the mix of combat, counterterror, deterrence, and nation-building we are finding ourselves increasingly involved in. The Rumsfeld transformation plan depended on allied partners taking a greater role in the latter while we concentrated on the big stuff. Unfortunately, they've both declined to help and refused to provide the support they signed up for until we provide a secure and stable Iraq - that's where the counterterror surge comes in.

It's time to support the troops by growing the force. And it's time for the nation to sacrifice, as Democrats keep saying we should be doing, by growing the DoD budget and shrinking the rest of the discretionary budget.

2008 is a time for choosing, but there's no reason we can't start now!

[templar knight]

It just strikes me as odd that the US has kept the numbers of troops in Europe we have since the end of the Cold War. My guess is that someone, or country, is making quite a sum of money on this US presence, and more than likely has numerous friends in Congress ready to prevent any major troop reduction in Europe. My thoughts.

And it would be an excellent idea to transfer at least 100,000 of these men directly to Iraq, and this war could be won in 6 mo. Had this been done from the start, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[Dan Riehl]

"It just strikes me as odd"

I've believed it's partly economics, as well - perhaps for two decades. Europe doesn't want local US base closures any more than do our own politicians.

[lonetown]

Pace is denying it.

[narciso]

First of all, I hope you know that Mullen is the Chairman now, not Pace. Second there's no actual quote from him. So wrong title, and no actual attribution. Is Beauchamp working for the L.A. Times
now.

[nowingker]

I can only laugh.

It's almost as if NO ONE has raised the idea of troops in Iraq straining the military before, as if Dan has never heard this concept before, as if it is a new and clearly treasonous idea put forth by lying cowardly generals and Joint Chiefs who are doing all they can to ruin your pretty war.

OMG, don't say about a million people didn't warn you.

Laughing My Axx Off

[ajacksonian]

My thanks seekeronos and Philip!

I do have this strange idea that the Executive should actually use its powers as the Head of State controlling foreign policy and as CinC to actually let a few Nations know that it is time for them to stand up for themselves... Germany, France to name two. A bit of the old 'flexing of the military sphere' in Europe to draw down there, and give longer rotation to those in Iraq and Afghanistan would be a good thing for the US and to let Europe know they now have to handle *their* immigrant problem without us. Stand with those that stand with us: Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics, UK... and that should not require 115,000 troops in EUCOM. Ditto PACOM and let China know that NoKo going fully nuclear or any WMD would be grounds for the US to greatly up the technical capability of our allies there. You saved the place in the 1950's, you take care of it. If China wants a nuclear neighborhood, then give them one. I fully trust Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan on that and other technical goods... like the aegis tech that we helped Japan on. Allies need to stand with us, not getting hand-outs from us.

But then I do have a very, very strange view of foreign policy. Almost Retiefian.

And if you love history and what folks in other generations did with 'terrorists', I have a not so fun view on *that*, either, which appears to be something we have forgotten: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-necessary-to-find-terrorists-to.html

We seem to have forgotten the basics of being a Nation.

[Purple Avenger]

If a nation of some 300M can't maintain a force of 160K on the ground for an extended period, without conscription, something wrong.

[Rich Casebolt]

nowinkger ... are those the same "million" who told us for so long that War is Never the Answer? We now have 2996 reasons they are wrong.

The same "million" who called for a nuclear freeze and decried Reagan as a senile cowboy ... as his confrontation of the USSR set the stage for the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and a peaceful collapse of that Evil Empire, by "changing the rules" in a manner similar to what we are doing in the MidEast?

The same "million" who kept telling us that our opponents in Iraq are all "freedom fighters" ... when in fact those closer to fitting the criteria of "freedom fighter" are now coming to us in great numbers to become allies, and join with us to defeat those who stubbornly refuse to stop the killing?

The same "million" who told us that the Iraqi people would only see us as occupiers ... when it is now reported they know we aren't there for oil and empire, and now view us as a trustworthy "tribe" in their midst?

The same "million" who dutifuly show up at anti-war/anti-globalization/anti-this/anti-that rallies ... until some bad weather hits, and the fashion sheep among them don't show up, leaving the true-believers in stupidity outnumbered 3-to-1 on the DC streets last March 17?

Why should we listen to them?

Or you ... parrot?

I await your droppings.

[jolari]

First of all, I hope you know that Mullen is the Chairman now, not Pace. Second there's no actual quote from him. So wrong title, and no actual attribution. Is Beauchamp working for the L.A. Times
now.

Posted by: narciso | Friday, August 24, 2007 at 07:31 PM

Mullen becomes the Chairman on October 1, 2007. Until then it is Pace.

[hobo]

So some dingbat now wants to draw the troop power in Iraq down by half. Philosophically not a bad idea if there weren't 1200 foreign fighters crossing the Syrian border every 30 days to reinforce the insurgents already there. Feed back from some of the troops is that one and two platoons from companies outside Baghdad are being sent in to support the surge, therefore leaving the ones left picking up the workload of the two no longer there. Two, three and sometimes four 24 hour days are common with the platoons left behind to continue the mission. Now they have to endure twice the sniping, RPGs, IEDs, and small arms fire. My question is how does our government expect one half of our troops to handle the insurgents when twice that number are working their asses off to hold what they have. I am one of the guys who have "been there, done that" and so far, little has changed. Say and believe what you want, but too much of this crap looks like Viet Nam all over again.

Note to Rich C: if you're talking about 2996 troop deaths, we are approaching 3750. Not meaning to be a smart ass, but I wanted to throw that in so people wouldn't get the wrong picture.