Today we saw
yet another US military being strained story.
The question is being raised: How does the military retain an all-volunteer force at the current level of U.S. commitment overseas?
..."We've tapped 'em out," the Army official said Thursday, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the manpower question has not been settled within the Pentagon.
The Army has about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait, and the official said that for planning purposes the service is figuring it will have to maintain that level for another four or five years. That's an astounding level of commitment, considering that the Army has many other obligations, including deterring war on the Korean peninsula and keeping peace in the Balkans.
And there is the "other" war - Afghanistan - now in its fourth year.
When President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's government in March 2003, battlefield success came so quickly that military planners foresaw withdrawing 50,000 U.S. troops within weeks, with even more coming home in the fall of 2003. Instead, the size of the U.S. force there has grown and now stands at the highest level of the entire war.
Among the indicators of how deeply troubled the situation appears:
*Despite a long and determined effort to build a competent Iraqi security force that could take over for the U.S. troops, that linchpin of Rumsfeld's exit strategy is, at best, inching ahead. The Iraqi force is only half the size that U.S. commanders believe is needed to do the job.
*Despite a successful offensive in November against the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, the rebels remain capable of killing U.S. troops and Iraqi police and soldiers in Baghdad, Mosul and elsewhere almost daily. A roadside bomb killed seven U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on Thursday.
*A U.S. military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, said Friday the worst may be yet to come. "I think a worst case is where they have a series of horrific attacks that cause mass casualties in some spectacular fashion in the days leading up to the elections," Lessel said. "A year ago you didn't see these kinds of horrific things."
Hammering the draft issue is definitely good for business for news organizations, but is it truly realistic? Yes, says Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings institute.
So what's the truth? Because enough people continue to join or reenlist in the military, unless we wind up in yet another war the draft will remain clearly unnecessary in the near future, regardless of who wins Nov. 2. That said, a draft is not totally out of the question in the years ahead. It is unlikely, but hardly inconceivable. The reason is simple. Under some circumstances, we might have no choice. In particular, if ongoing overseas operations remain so onerous for the volunteer force, people could start leaving the military in droves and the number of those joining could become insufficient to replace them. Alternatively, if another big war breaks out and particularly if it requires a long stabilization mission after major combat ends, today's military could prove far too small for the job, leaving a draft as the only way to quickly beef it up...
We're already deploying today's soldiers and Marines at a pace that is unrivaled in the history of the all-volunteer force, at considerable risk to the staying power of that force. Take, for example, the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which was critical in overthrowing Saddam Hussein last year--and is now getting ready to redeploy to Iraq this winter. The Marines' 1st Division, also part of that invasion force, is back in Iraq. Some 50,000 reservists have been involuntarily activated not once but twice since 9/11.
Remarkably, our troops are responding with grit and patriotism to the challenge so far. The data on recruiting and retention show that there is no personnel crisis--at least not yet. But that reality could change as more units deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan for a second or even a third time in the coming months.
O'Hanlon is Brookings' resident fellow on defense issues, so if anyone would know, it's him.
Through the Clinton era, US national security doctrine had always been that we should be prepared for the possibility of two simulatious wars. It is highly possible that we could be drawn into another military encounter with Iran or North Korea or even China over Tiawan. I could keep on going if I needed to, with less likely but still possible scenarios like Pakistan. The point is while we've needlessly pinned ourselves down in Iraq, we've effectively tied our hands if a real military threat were to present itself.
And that's not even taking into account the likely possibility that recruitment and retention will start dropping dramatically in the coming years.
So, for all the skeptics who still think the draft rhetoric is just a left over campaign issue, think again. This isn't a joke. This is for real.
MoralQuestionsBlog.com