PhotoDude.com

Mon. Apr 12, 2004

Angry Generals And Phantom Reinforcements

From Robert Novak, not exactly a bedfellow of the left:

The uniformed military does not speak out publicly, but the generals are outraged. A former national security official considers the relationship at the Pentagon between civilians and the military as worse than at any time in his long career.

At the heart of this debate is the original belief by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s team that conquering U.S. troops would be welcomed by open arms in Iraq. In this highly political season, Democrats are replaying the debate of a year ago. Gen. Eric Shinseki, then about to leave as the Army’s chief of staff, said “several hundred thousand soldiers” could be needed in Iraq. “Way off the mark,” retorted Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Adhering to the principle of civilian control of the military and unvarying obedience to orders, the generals have not publicly expressed their opinion that Shinseki was much closer to the truth than Wolfowitz. However, Abizaid made clear Monday that he was not going to be the fall guy if conditions in Iraq further deteriorate. If commanders want more troops to fulfill their mission, he will ask for them. That would leave Rumsfeld with no choice.

Although underestimating troop needs in a less political environment would mean fixing the blame at the Pentagon, every issue today becomes a test of party loyalty. Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, the top two Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are assailed by the White House for offering constructive criticism. With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy setting the Democratic line by saying that “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam,” sensible dialogue is impossible.

While Democrats roar, the generals are silent – in public. Many confide that they will not cast their normal Republican votes on Nov. 2. They cannot bring themselves to vote for John Kerry, who has been a consistent Senate vote against the military. But they say they are unable to vote for Don Rumsfeld’s boss, and so will not vote at all.

I also heard a quote from Gen. Abizaid where he said that the current troop levels are sufficient. However … if his forces have to fight a civil war … or if his forces are required to seal the border with Syria or Iran, they will come up short. One would think border security would have been on the “job list” before the invasion even began over a year ago. But we’ve never had enough troops for that. Reports of foreign fighters in Fallujah indicate that lack has cost us.

Novak also points out, if more troops are needed, there is a very real question about where they will come from. Elements of the 3rd Infantry Division are refitting, restructuring, or training in the Mojave Desert. It will be months before they can load up to go. National Guard units would require considerable time to “train up” as well. Our options seem a bit limited over the course of the next 60-90 days, and that’s the critical time.

That’s also something we should keep in mind with all the calls for international troops to be added in Iraq. We saw in Afghanistan, when they really wanted to help us, with only a couple of exceptions, they could not get to the battle. What few forces they had to offer did not have the transport capability to even show up, unless we supplied it.

We take our military’s ability to quickly project force for granted. The reality is, it is a pretty unique capability in our current world. And right now, it’s stretched near its maximum.