Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Military Growth

I would like the Bush administration to answer one question regarding his plan to increase the number of soldiers. What is the goal?
Besides increasing the influence of the Army within the defense structure, I don't see how it will increase our strategic advantage. He says that it is because the war on terrorism is going to be "long". That means that either we will have a large force in Iraq for many years or that there will be another Iraq style adventure. Is this their desired direction?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that an increase in force levels will "deter potential adversaries from aggressive moves based on an assumption that American power was bogged down in Iraq". This logic fails on two levels. First, it is based on an old fashioned two front war mindset. Their cold war thinking should be abandoned for a hot spot approach. The hot spot approach focuses on the ability to quickly and efficiently move forces to quell problems. Global terrorism is a result of weak/failed states and the loss of governments ability to their people which cannot be defeated with tank columns.
Secondly, troops will not be recruited and sufficiently trained for battle for years. Citing Iraq as a reason for increased troop levels must then be based on an assumption of a substantial commitment there. The Weekly Standard is not going to win a political tug of war with the American people. After Bush's troop surge the political will for policing Baghdad will be infinitesimal.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I have to agree. The plan at first was to "win" the war on terror. However there will never really be a win, just an overall policing of the world.