Damage to the military will take years to repair

[Barrett808]

Damage to the military will take years to repair
Joe Galloway
Knight Ridder

Anyone else might be embarrassed when not one but two detailed studies of the way he's doing business conclude that his plans and assumptions are totally wrong, but not Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

A recent Rand Corp. study commissioned by the Pentagon of the U.S. Army in this time of war concluded that without an increase in manpower the Army ''simply cannot sustain the force levels needed to break the back of the insurgent movement'' in Iraq.

Yet another study, conducted by the Defense Department's own Institute for Defense Analyses, concluded that the Army's Transformation program, intended to add combat brigades without boosting manpower, cuts the number of maneuver battalions in those brigades while adding more headquarters troops.

''The essence of land power is resident in the maneuver battalions that occupy terrain, control populations and fight battles, not in headquarters and enablers,'' the IDA study said. ''Yet the Army plan reduces the number of maneuver battalions by 20 percent below the number available in 2003, while increasing headquarters by 11.5 percent.''

The IDA study noted that under the Army plan, now well under way, the number of infantry battalions in infantry brigades and the number of armor battalions in armor brigades had been cut from three to two.

Army spokesmen counter that each reorganized brigade also has been given a combat-capable reconnaissance squadron.

...

In a Pentagon where Rumsfeld thought he could storm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein with fewer than 50,000 troops - with no thought of what would happen after Baghdad fell - perhaps all of this makes sense of a sort. Yes. Nonsense.

Rumsfeld's response: ''I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking. The people writing these things don't have any more insight than the other people around here do.''

(more)

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3660623

[unhappycamper]

1. Barrett808:

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs and must include a link to the original source.

In the future, please insure your posts adhere to this standard.

TIA,

unhappycamper
DU Moderator

[Barrett808]

4. Aye aye, mon Capitain

:)

[UpInArms]

2. more proof that Rumfailed is insane

In a Pentagon where Rumsfeld thought he could storm Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein with fewer than 50,000 troops - with no thought of what would happen after Baghdad fell - perhaps all of this makes sense of a sort. Yes. Nonsense.

[bemildred]

3. The "Transformation program" was and is based in Pentagon

faith-based herd-think, and there has NEVER been any sound reason to think it would work in practice. Faced with a world that CANNOT be controlled by military force, and a requirement that the world MUST be controlled by military force (having no other effective means at hand), they just made some shit up and pretended it would work. And intelligent thinkers in military affairs have been saying this right along, perhaps better than I, and mostly getting fired for their pains.

[Spoonerian]

5. Here are my comments:

Regarding, "Damage to the military will take years to repair"

Good! Standing armies are prohibited by the federal and most state constitutions. This country was founded on the premise that professional government soldiers are dangerous to liberty.

Although many of them were slave rapists, the original democrats like Thomas Jefferson well understood this and wrote the bill of rights to protect themselves from these dangers. In a letter to Francis Hopkinson (March 13, 1789) Jefferson wrote: "a (federal) bill of rights (must) secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, (and) freedom from a permanent military..."

In a letter to James Madison on December 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote that a federal Bill of Rights must "provide clearly...for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, (and) protection against standing armies..."

Regarding: "without an increase in manpower the Army ''simply cannot sustain the force levels needed to break the back of the insurgent movement'' in Iraq."

Thank God! When they were unable to break the back of the Viet Namese, hope was renewed that these global goons could be stopped, scaled back, and maybe someday dismantled entirely. But all that did was inspire the cowboys to schedule weaker opponents and employ brutal pre-war softening up tactics--such as hiring modern Democrats like Clinton to besiege and starve out countries for 10 years before they're invaded.

Regarding: "Rumsfeld's response: ''I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking. The people writing these things don't have any more insight than the other people around here do.''"

The only reason that Iran doesn't allow the Shia to march from the south and trap 150,000 US mass murderers and bring them to justice is because they know that the military industrial complex will throw a hissy fit and nuke Tehran in response. Well, as reality is finally setting in and the cowboys realize that the colonization of Iraq is just as unsustainable as Viet Nam, this time I don't think they're going to Watergate Bush and let Jimmy Carter and the Democrats wind it down--they're going to nuke Tehran anyway. So, as a good will gesture for the benefit of those who survive, the Iranians might as well give the Shiites the green light. There's always the slight possibility that the cowboys will balk, quit their jobs in the military industrial complex, and find more honest work--like we thought they were doing back in 1975.

[sofa king]

6. I am reminded of Jefferson, too.

Welcome to DU Spoonerian.

Specifically, I'm thinking of Jefferson's theories of a maintaining a military command "skeleton" which in times of need could incorporate a massive influx of militia and/or conscripts.

Devoting resources to headquarters and command instead of actual maneuver units might possibly be an indicator of Rumsfeld's future plans. Is he building the infrastructure for a larger armed force before filling the ranks by whatever means necessary?

I wouldn't be surprised at all.