The Iraq War is Endangering Our Military

Published on December 17, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Bush is looking at surging the number of troops in Iraq. At the same time ALL the land force military chiefs have told Bush and Congress that we CAN NOT sustain substantially larger deployments at the current military manpower levels. That includes the Army CoS, Marine Corps Commandant, Chief of the Army Reserve and Chief of the National Guard. The issue is both the available manpower and the condition of the equipment that has been severely impacted by over four years in Iraq which causes much higher wear rates due to the very harsh environment.

To surge troop levels in Iraq given the troop levels is not realistic. The Marine Corps Chief has said he can not send more Marines without endangering the Corps. The Army CoS said without the Reserve and Guard he has the same problem. The Chiefs of the Guard and Reserve say they can not sustain more troops on active duty and their equipment will not support larger deployments.

This is not a new issue. Bush said in the 2000 campaign that the Army and Marine Corps were too small. During the past 6 years Bush has substantially increased the demands on the military and has ignored the need for more troops. Now the problem is that even if there is some possibility that more troops could reduce the violence in Iraq, to send those troops will endanger the land components of our Military. To increase the levels of troops to enable a substantially larger force in Iraq would take TIME. The problem Bush is facing is he DOES NOT have the TIME! If he had acted during the past 6 years to address the manpower issue he would have that option today.

If Bush chooses to ignore the negative impact on our military and surges the troop levels in Iraq, we could see a temporary reduction in the levels of attacks and just as soon as the troop levels are reduced, the attacks could resume and we will have accomplished NOTHING. One option Bush does not have is to SUSTAIN much larger troop levels in Iraq for a long period of time. The harm Bush has done to our military is hard to evaluate in the short run. However, there is NO question that our military is in more danger today then since WWII and Bush is the reason for that situation! We have NEVER had All our most senior military commanders be so pessimistic about the condition of our military force. If GOD forbid some other crises were to develop, we CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY RESPOND! We can not even sustain what we are currently doing. Some troops are facing their FOURTH deployment in this war. That can not continue!

Comments (Page 4)

COL Gene

on Dec 20, 2006

Island Dog

That is pure BS. Every time you do not like an article that shows Bush for the Idiot he is you say it is taken out of context or tell us it just the liberal press or attack the provider. The truth is it is the NEWS much of the time it is reporting the FAILED policies of GWB!

Anyone the voted for GWB and who still supports him is just as big an idiot as Bush!

Island Dog

on Dec 20, 2006

That is pure BS. Every time you do not like an article that shows Bush for the Idiot he is you say it is taken out of context or tell us it just the liberal press or attack the provider. The truth is it is the NEWS much of the time it is reporting the FAILED policies of GWB!

Col, just today the media tried to mis-quote Bush. It happens all the time.

You do the exact same thing here. You post a NYT article and ignore any facts that dismiss it and your claims. Keep holding your eyes while everyone is talking col, maybe one day you will choose to listen.

drmiler

on Dec 20, 2006

The new Sec Def, Powell, The Baker Commission and 70% of the American People and most of the senior military say we are NOT winning. The vast majority believe it is likely we will loose this war by the Bush definition of win and loose.

This is PURE BS! There ya go again misquoting the Sec Def. His "exact" quote was "We're not winning but we're not losing either! By God if you're going to quote someone at least do so correctly!
From MSNBC:

"Our military wins the battles that we fight," Gates said. "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments and so on." He said other federal agencies should do more in Iraq.

He said he agrees with President Bush’s goal for Iraq: a country that can defend, sustain and govern itself. Gates said the president believes “there needs to be a change in our approach in Iraq, that what we are doing now is not working satisfactorily.”

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

Even "more" BS:

Gates noted there are 150,000 troops engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan today. But the Army has 500,000 active-duty soldiers and another 500,000 reserve-component forces. He said he would like to see how the rest of the rest of the Army -- those not engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan -- is being used to ensure that all forces are used in the best way.

“If the answer is those troops are deployed in the way we want them deployed, then I am very open to the idea of increasing the end-strength,” he said.

Now that I have refuted your statement "with" proof are you now willing to retract your statement? And btw....Powell means absolutely nothing! He's not even part of the government.

I notice that you "completely" ignored this.

COL Gene

on Dec 21, 2006

If after 4 years, 3,000 dead, 25,000 injured and 1/2 Trillion dollars we are not winning- we are LOOSING BIG TIME!

Island Dog

on Dec 21, 2006

If after 4 years, 3,000 dead, 25,000 injured and 1/2 Trillion dollars we are not winning- we are LOOSING BIG TIME!

No we are not. If you took as much time to read the real stories form Iraq as you do complaining about Bush, you would see a different picture. All you do is pass along the NYT headlines and cheer we are not winning.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!