Responding to the “strains” on the US military

I have a lot of respect for the realism and professionalism of most officers in the U.S.military. Unlike the scores of “chickenhawks” in the Bush administration– that is, people who’ve never been in combat (and generally don’t have children in the military), but who have vociferously engaged in the public propaganda and decisionmaking that sent the US military into Iraq– most members of the US officer corps have a serious, well-informed idea of the real human costs and risks of combat, and therefore also a keen understanding of the need to do calm, objective analysis of the facts on the ground when consideraing any use of force.
This professional orientation, informed as it is by the “learning” provided by stable, long-term professional institutions, led many or probably most members of the US officer corps to oppose the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, though that opposition was not much expressed publicly at the time.
Now, as the consequences of that invasion are more and more clearly revealing themselves as disastrous for all concerned, including the U.S. military, we are hearing many more military-related voices– and this time, some also from within the serving military– arguing loud and clear that continued pursuit of the present course in Iraq “is breaking the U.S. army.” (Q.v., Colin Powell, Kevin Ryan, etc.)
Many of these people link their warnings about the precarious current situation of the US Army to two strong policy prescriptions:

    (1) The US needs to find a way to effect a significant drawdown of troops from Iraq, and
    (2) The US anyway needs to raise and fund an increased total force strength in the Army.

I sympathize very strongly with the first of these prescriptions– indeed, I want a troop withdrawal from Iraq that is total and speedy– and I respect the realist and generally “conservative” outlook that many of these military people bring to their view of strategy and the use of force. However, I am also very strongly indeed opposed to the idea that, because of the current crisis in the US military, what our country needs to do is increase the size of the military.
If we do that, where will it all end? And anyway, why should we US citizens, who make up less than five percent of the world’s people, persist in the strange notion that securing the peace and stability of the whole world– or, more accurately, dominating the strategic scene of the whole world– should be the task of our country, anyway?
So what I’d like to see right now, instead of discussions about how many hundreds of billions of dollars we need to appropriate in order to “rebuild” the currently near-broken US military, is the start of a serious, broad discussion in this country and everywhere else around the world, of how we can start to design a set of new global ‘security’ arrangements that are cooperative, transparent, and broadly accountable to the global public.
Bottom line: After the past 44-plus months’ worth of its performance in Iraq, the US has now lost any claim, such as successive US leaders have made since the end of the Cold War, that its worldwide military presence provides any kind of sane and acceptable security system for the whole world. A rogue (but at the time, “democratically” legitimated) government in Washington misused– and continues to misuse– the country’s fearsome military might in Iraq. We US citizens now have no reason whatsoever to expect anyone else, in other countries, merely to “trust” that our government will use the bloated and hyper-lethal military machine that it commands to “do the right thing” anywhere else, in the future.
So instead of shoveling huge amounts of additional money into an attempt to “fix” the US military by– among other things– increasing (!) its overall size, what we urgently need to do is engage in a broad dialogue both inside our country and globally on how to build a network of new security arrangements around the world on a basis of cooperation, reciprocity, a respect for the equality of persons and of nations, the cultivation of international confidence, and trust.
In simple cash terms and in terms of our own national priorities, we Americans cannot afford for a minute longer to think that our role in the world is to be one of Prussians-without-end. (The Pentagon is considering asking for $468.9 billion in their basic budget for FY 2008– and that’s without all the add-ons. Imagine!)
And why would we want to cling to any such vision, anyway? Haven’t we now seen how much it damages the real wellbeing of all US citizens except for a tiny sliver of corporate contractors?

30 thoughts on “Responding to the “strains” on the US military”

  1. The US has more armchair Rambos, Dirty Hairies and Chicken Little MeNuggets than Frank Purdue has pullets. They always crow that the mighty military can do its task, provided “the pols” just get out of the way. Nam would have been a sure thing, etc. Now they are squawking more than ever. The ISG Report has them scratching and moulting because it says to lock the top roosters in the pen and give up conquest of the hen house. The fox will make a mess and get all the eggs. Ben Connable, in a Dec-17 NYT op ed, tells them exactly what kind of calamity to expect. Gee, how the feathers will fly as insurgents run amok. Connable is more convincing than some scare mongers. The precedents he cites are pretty much would could happen on a grand scale.
    Will thouse who call for a quick pullout be absolved because they had good intentions or presumed that Iraqis would become amicable to eachother?
    Of course, chaos could still erupt after a “last surge” by the US, but unless this is tried Grand Old Poultry will insist that it was merely another case of victory denied by the weak willed civies. Eliot Cohen and kin will be utterly unrepentant. In any case, whether the advocates of buildup get their case of not, the US will be in Iraq through 2008 anyway, and every setback will be blamed on failure to ratchet up.
    By the way, Connable might agree with you that the US, with only 5% of the world’s people, carries too much of the world’s defense burden. His solution, though, would have to be others pay more too.

  2. Well, my main issue is not who pays, but rather, who makes any war or peace decisions. And right now, we have the v. scary situation that that is… The Decider.
    Scary for everyone, whether US citizens or not, I think.

  3. Helena, I admire how you always take a principle stand for peace and are constantly proposing reasonable solutions to problems in the Middle East and especially Iraq. But sometimes it seems like you’re a lone voice crying in the dark.
    Case in point: Harry Reid came out yesterday and said he would accept a temporary surge of troops into Iraq, given that this is attached to a withdrawal within 2-3 months of the surge. I can’t believe how little coverage this has gotten in the blogs and mainstream media; I think that Reid is being very stupid here and basically betraying his mandate as leader of the Democrats to begin a speedy, generous, and total withdrawal, as you put it. By surging troops into Iraq, we would be making it that much harder for us to leave, and create more violence and bloodshed.
    I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere in terms of actually withdrawing until we apply some serious pressure through the internet and these discussion groups on Harry Reid, as he is poised to be one of if not the most powerful Democrats in Washington soon. Clearly the netroots don’t get us anywhere in terms of altering neoconservative policy and the right-wing agenda, unless they’re absolutely forced; but I always thought Harry Reid was a reasonable guy, and I note that he has been often admired by self-styled progressives for being reasonable.

  4. “Reid is…basically betraying his mandate as leader of the Democrats to begin a speedy, generous, and total withdrawal…”
    What on earth makes you think THAT is the mandate? It is certainly not what the ISG report calls for, and I don’t think it is necessarily what the majority of the American people have in mind, either. What the ISG report calls for is merely to make what is going on in Iraq less visible by making the American presence there less visible. Based on the polls the majority of Americans think that is just fine. Based on the fact that two of the favourites for ’08 are Hillary Clinton, who is one of the leading Democratic hawks, and Barak Obama, who has stated clearly what HIS ideas are (and they do NOT include any real withdrawal, let alone one that is speedy, total, OR generous), I would say the American people are not exactly looking for that.
    What the American people are looking for is a way to not have to deal with or even look at what their government is doing in Iraq.

  5. Helena, as usual, I agree with you about where we ought to be, but disagree to some extent about where we are. Fist, what support do you have for the assertion that “many or probably most members of the US officer corps” opposed the invasion of Iraq? I don’t think that’s true. Certainly the generals would have gone about it differently, but I don’t think most of them were opposed to the idea of knocking out Saddam. And as for having a “serious, well-informed idea of the real human costs and risks of combat,” I think that varies by branch of service. The army and marines, yes. The navy and air force? Not so much. Myers was an air force general, remember? Those guys are into big weapons systems that they hardly ever get a chance to really use. From thousands of feet up, or miles out to sea, you don’t see too much of the “real human costs” of combat.
    Second, it’s not just a “tiny sliver of corporate contractors” that are benefiting from all this. Wall Street had a record year in 2005, and will have another one in 2006. The energy industry is booming. This economy, which you and I benefit from in many respects, is dependent on cheap foreign labor and cheap foreign energy, and an unprotected foreign market for US exports. This is enforced, directly or indirectly, by military power. I know you know this, but let’s not pretend that changing to a more equitable system is just a matter of opening the White House drapes and letting some sun shine in.
    BTW, here is a tangentially relevant but hilarious story from NPR about one of the companies working on the “big fence” between California and Mexico that just agreed to pay $5M in fines for hiring illegal immigrant workers!

  6. Not only do Americans overwhelmingly support the ISG, but the vast majority wants to withdraw from Iraq soon. This is a fact and is indicated by poll after poll.
    “What the American people are looking for is a way to not have to deal with or even look at what their government is doing in Iraq.”
    How could you say this? The fact that they swept Democrats into office indicates that they are supporting the inevitable plethora of investigations into Iraq that will come about. Just watch the news for the next few months; there’s a good chance you’ll see many of the important and under-investigated aspects of this war exposed. So we definitely will “look at” what our government is doing in Iraq.
    As for “dealing with” it, this is precisely why the Democrats swept into office- so we could deal with this issue rather than “stay the course”. Can you say with a straight face that if we were winning this war or if it wasn’t an issue, the Democrats would have swept the House and Congress?
    I admit that many Americans do not seem to be ready for an immediate withdrawal yet- but the vast majority, if you look at any recent poll, do want us to set a fixed timetable to leave the country. In fact, nearly every Democrat who came into office in the mid-terms said that he would support a withdrawal soon, with some exceptions.
    Now, I think the mistake that you’re making here is that you’re assuming that because many of our Democrats are hawks and unconditionally pro-Israeli, overrides the fact that the American public overwhelmingly supports a change in policy in Iraq. I think as an Israeli (you are one, right?), you should know particularly that the views of our elected leaders are often very much different from our own.
    I’m not denying that there’s a strong strain of American exceptionalism in American society. But for the US public, this is really a big change. Obviously I won’t expect many in the US to realize that the project that Bush set out on was imperialistic and immoral- though a decent number do acknowledge this.
    Shirin, have you payed attention at all to sites like dailykos.com or firedoglake.com? Both were big supporters of Harry Reid, and both are very much against the Iraq war. You need to understand that the netroots had a pretty large impact in getting Democrats elected, and in realistically defining our political discourse. In this context of the netroots, Reid is betraying his mandate, and I will stick by that.

  9. Sorry! I guess part of it was the name (I don’t see the name Shirin every day) and I thought I remembered seeing it somewhere. Rest assured I definitely did not mean it as an insult, so you don’t need to “emphatically” defend yourself against this charge 🙂
    I share your general cynicism to some extent, Shirin, but I’m also seeing indication after indication that many people are trying to come to terms with the Iraq war and are trying to extricate the US from the country. Whether this is for the selfish reason of losing troops rather than the destruction of Iraqi society is significant, but ultimately beside the point for what I’m arguing here about the Democratic mandate for change.

  10. OK Mike, here’s the idea behind the “surge of troops.” They launch a really punitive attack against the Shiite militias that the Cheney government views as proxies for Iran. The hope is that this will provoke some overt act of “interference” by Tehran that will justify you-know-what. If it doesn’t, they can still claim it did. There’s bound to be some kind of resistance, right? Harry Reid says he’s all for it – you know, as long as it doesn’t take too long. Clever Hillary says she would not support a surge “unless it was part of a broader long-term plan to stabilize the region.” Everybody knows the current regime in Iran is a destabilizing influence, and my goodness if they are caught “interfering” in Iraq, then heavens-to-betsy we have to do something, don’t we?

  11. “Sorry! I guess part of it was the name…”
    Shirin is not an Israeli name, FYI. :o} It is Farsi/Kurdish in origin, and it is also quite popular among Arabs. Shiri, on the other hand, is an Arabic name, and I believe it is also a name in Hebrew since I have known a couple of Israelis with that name.

  12. John, while I think you’re on to something, I think it’s more complicated than that. For one, there are indeed indications that a punitive strike is being considered against the Mahdi army and al-Sadr’s forces. But then I see these other indications that Cheney’s office is considering backing the Shiites full-stop, as they are numerically more powerful. It’s not that clear.
    And no, I definitely do not think that Iran would respond if the US provoked them by attacking Shiite militias, for several reasons. One, they have already played a very smart hand, and have resisted doing anything like this while also funding the Shiite militias and providing them with support. They are very pragmatic, and if you think they can be suckered into the Bush war by something like this, then you are gravely mistaken. Two, and Juan Cole emphasized this in one of his recent posts, the Shiite militias are very socially mobilized, to the extent that they enjoy widespread support and legitimacy among the many of the Shiite masses, as these militias provide them not just security but the necessary conditions for living. So what I’m trying to say is that Iran simply does not need to interfere, if the US hit the Shiite militias- you generally cannot destroy a socially mobilized group like this, as was the case with Hezbollah. And anyway, this strikes me as incredibly foolish and I seriously don’t anyone would allow US policy to shift in this direction- it’s suicidal, because then not only will the Sunnis want us out, but also many Shiites will too.
    I’m not exactly sure that you’re correct in reading Hillary’s comments as a suggestion that she would back a surge if it was used to counter Iranian influence- I know she has expressed sentiments against the Iranians before, but I don’t think this is what she is saying here exactly. Though I admit I haven’t read the rest of what she said, and you might need to place it in context for me.
    And John, I’m hearing speculation that one of the main reasons that some people such as Harry Reid are supporting the idea of a troops (he qualified this with “if the commanders call for it”– which they most definitely are not at the moment), is that he wants to get Bush even further into this quagmire and thus come out on top of this mess, rather having it seem like the Democrats lost the war. This strikes me as exceptionally cynical, but perhaps the Washington power structure breeds such cynicism? I’m a bit doubtful, but it’s a possibility.

  13. Thanks Mike. I don’t have any inside information, and your speculation is worth the same as mine, but why exactly do you think Cheney is pushing the idea of a troop surge at this late stage of the game? Everybody and his dog knows that 20,000 more troops is not going to turn the tide in Iraq. Do you think Cheney is stupid? I don’t. Crazy, yes. Stupid, no.

  14. Indeed all I have is speculation John, but I think it’s credible speculation as it’s based on recent news reports and a visit Cheney made to Saudi Arabia. It was reported in The Guardian that Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia because their leader wanted to tell him not to support the Shiites so much; it also recently emerged that Saudi Arabian citizens are quietly funding the Sunni insurgent movement, and that Saudi Arabia might fund the Sunnis in the event that the US withdraws. I keep hearing that Cheney is considering backing the Shiites full-stop, and from the perspective of Cheney I bet this would make a lot of sense. The reason I say that is because Cheney seems to think solely in terms of power, and so it would make sense that he would be inclined to dramatically support the most powerful sect in Iraq, thus boosting the US position by association.
    Of course this idea is incredibly stupid for too many reasons to list, but it does seem to be in line with Cheney’s thinking.
    John, I think you’re greatly overestimating Cheney’s intelligence, as he played an important role in getting us into Iraq in the first place. I say that that was a stupid move because such a neocolonial policy of installing a client regime in Iraq and opening the door for oil to US multinationals is doomed to fail. This is why I cringe every time I hear people discussing why this war went wrong, whether it was not sending in enough troops or this or that. The main reason, I think, is that in the year 2003, neocolonialism is bound to fail, especially in such a volatile country in the Middle East where people have a strong sense of national pride and resistance to foreign occupation. People are just way too mobilized for the US to pull anything like this off.
    In sum, I think you John are giving Cheney way too much credit. People assume he has this geostrategic aptitude, this sense of what the right strategy to take on a global scale is. This assumption is wrong, and that it is wrong is a reflection on Cheney’s stupidity, born from imperial arrogance. If he is stupid enough to assume that the Iraq fiasco would work out, isn’t he also stupid enough to assume that more military force would help us progress? Perhaps he believes sincerely in Bush’s delusional rhetoric of progress?
    But what do you think makes him smart? I think that in the use of manipulative rhetoric and political propaganda, Cheney is a new Einstein. But that in itself does not take one very far.

  16. You are right to resist the calls to enlarge the military Helena.
    No matter how large our military is, some US leaders will be tempted to use it for tasks that exceed its reach. And then other US leaders will view the gap between grasp and reach as evidence that the military is too small. For some Spartan-minded militarists, any level of military capacity short of global omnipotence is inadequate.
    Soldiers are like tax revenues in the hands of government officials. If you give them tax revenues, they will find some way to spend them. If you give them soldiers, they will find some way to kill them. The only way to discipline government officials in their use of the military is to deny them the endless series of human blank checks they crave.
    Our military is more than adequate to meet the legitimate defensives needs of the United States. It is not adequate to meet the needs of every crackpot world-transforming project that enters the militarist mind. That’s a good thing.

  17. IMHO, despite all the squawks from left and right, they will try their “surge” to some extent, and will only start really withdrawing significant troops when the losses and defeat become unbearable from a military perspective. I do not believe for a moment that the US establishment responds to “popular mandates”, other than to modify their theatrics on Sunday morning talk shows. I have said this before, it was not the vets or peace demonstrations that ended the Vietnam war; the Vietcong did. And here again, brave Iraqi men and women will. The Orientalists like to say about the Arabs/Muslims that they only understand the language of force. History, especially that of post-WWII shows that this applies far better to the US, Israel and their allies. We can all talk until we are blue in the face, but there will be no “orderly” or “graceful” exit. I hate to sound like a broken record, but as the old song goes, a la Saigon.
    Let us just hope the imminent addition of Iran to the operational theatre will not make the bloodshed many, many times worse. It is very possible, and we can hear the drums of war getting closer. Over the past week, many European dailies (Le Monde, Der Zeit, Le Nouvelle Observateur, Guardian, Independent, Le Figaro, La Repubblica, … ) have published editorials and op-eds pleading with or threatening the US administration not to attack Iran. It is hard for me to believe that it is all a coincidence. There must be some shivers going around the halls of power. Since the 70s, when it comes to US foreign policy, I have learned to expect the worst and hope for the best; my expectations have often been fulfilled, my hopes never.

  18. Helena
    as I read your piece I wondered if you have read Paul Kennedy on the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
    The last couple of chapters explain what happens when you reach the top of the greasy pole.
    You may or may not have been following the news from Bishkek. Things aren’t quite going to plan.

  20. Every head of any empire , no matter how small, wants that empire to grow. This is just as true of the POTUS, vice president, CEO of a corporation, head of a division or head of the mail room It is equally true of the military. No one becomes a saint by putting on a uniform. After seeing what happened to General Shinseki, all the others fell in line, not to protect the country, but to protect their careers. A bigger army means that more colnels will get to be generals, more captains will make admiral. While it sometimes has a greater moral dimension, most of the time, it is a job and a career, and advancement is the name of the game.

  21. Just to see whats going on for US troop in Iraq
    Today this report:
    Iraq attacks on the rise
    Attacks on US-led forces in Iraq increased by 22 percent, in the last three months, according to a Pentagon report. The report identified the Mehdi Army of radical Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al Sadr as the group most damaging to Iraqi security and the biggest catalyst for sectarian violence. It also noted an increase in civilian casualties and linked this to the rise of sectarian death squads, which it said were aided by elements of the Iraqi security forces.
    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,2145,12215_pg_3,00.html

  22. Chaps interesting use of words in Mr Gates speech yesterday. “We cannot afford Failure” I wonder why not defeat?
    Don’t wonder too much, I would say. “We cannot afford Failure” is just a variant of the cliché they always use when waging war. During the first year of the occupation of Iraq they said it almost every day, in a slightly different version: “Failure Is No Option!” Remember? This is, I think, the original version. Heard another version recently from the BBC, this time about that other failure, Afghanistan. In NATO capitals, said the BBC (after some setbacks for the NATO), there was some despair, but also a determination to see this through, because this “Mission (is) Too Important To Be Allowed To Fail”.
    Still, I like the original version more. “Failure Is No Option!”. It has a certain “Hasta La Vista, Baby!” ring about it, don’t you think?

  23. We’ve all got to stop using their language. “Surge” is comtemporary gooble-de-guck for ESCALATION. Let’s say it aloud. Our rulers are in the process of deciding to double their bet, with no concern for the lives of US soldiers, the further destruction of Iraq, or anything except covering their own asses when they get kicked out.
    People in the US get this — how long will it take for us to make our repudiation of these people effectual?

  24. The Joint Chiefs are talking to the press about their opposition to the White House plan for sending more troops to Iraq. The forces already there are running on fumes. Baghdad is effectively under siege. Dick & W are in a very tight corner. What will they do?
    Well, according to CBS and NBC, there is a major naval buildup under way in and around the Persian Gulf, which will including moving a second carrier group into position, “not with the aim of actually attacking Iran, but strictly as a deterent [sic].”
    I can’t imagine too many ways of using naval and air power to deter nuclear weapons development, can you? Does anybody think Iran will halt its enrichment program because there are a couple of carriers parked nearby? If that were the idea, then how long would we have to keep them there?

  26. John C.
    “Let’s stop mourning the old Middle East,”
    more than 100 years ago same attitude at that time when they called Othman the “Ill Man” then we saw the west did what they did in ME early 1900, so now “Mourning the Old ME” let do another scenario.

  28. Chaps
    Apparently General Abizaid has decided to retire early, and General Casey is to be given the push.
    Ho Hum. General Massu won the Battle of Algiers but they found that there was nobody left alive to negotiate with.
    Watch out for a blanket ban on independent reporters.
    Jean Paul Sartre has a not terribly good play about what Massu was doing in Algiers.

  29. Tony “The Poodle” Blair delivers the Emperor’s message:
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20463417.htm
    Is this the language of diplomacy?
    The political careers of Bush, Cheney and Blair are all over, no matter what happens. Given their low public approval ratings and disastrous performance in Iraq, none of them personally has anything to gain by being cautious, or anything to lose by going for broke. All three sincerely believe they are engaged in an epic but lonely struggle against evil, the virtue of which will be appreciated only by future generations, long after they have ridden off into the sunset. I’m sure a tear comes to W’s eye whenever he lets himself drift into this sentimental and narcissistic reverie, which he probably does 3 or 4 times per day.

  30. I’m sure a tear comes to W’s eye
    I think you mistaken in this these sort of people they don’t have “Tears” for any one and they just believes their minds and hearts but they are heartless

Comments are closed.