Mike,

Amazing post from you, if I was dead, I'd be rolling over in my grave. I guess you're an old fashion conservative after all and not a neocon.

I fail to follow the reasoning why we're still pursuing cold war logic of the capability of potentially blowing the world up ten or more times. If we have the technology to blow it up once, then the technology to blow it up an additional nine times is money down the drain, since it will be blown up in the first strike.

The money should be concentrated where the needs are today, with the troops on the ground. It's not surprising to see the contractors leading the dog, since they have one of there own as VP who for all practical matters is over defense and Middle Eastern policy.

I have to admit the neocons in the past have been good political warriors, but totally suck at military warfare.

DC

As a former Boeing manager, I witnessed the missile defense programs transform from, comparatively speaking, focused, evidence based R&D during the Clinton administration to a Wild West, lets throw money and see what sticks free-for-all. Meanwhile, follow-on programs for soldiers in the field, like Common Missile (replacement for TOW and similar) dried up. Future Combat Systems, from the start, transferred not just money but talent and effort away from programs to support the war fighter fighting the current war to programs to fight a speculative enemy that looked a look like us, or maybe an evolved Soviet Union, but not any of the current threats. Rumsfeld's defense transformation was a con-game: It used some very legitimate concerns about present force structures as a cover for a raid on the Treasury.

Posted by: Mike Deal

Army forces are stretched too thin, everyone agrees with that. If we have to debate whether or not to stay in Iraq, then we need to leave because no one was questioning whether or not to go into WWII. I do think we need the support of all the country or at least 80% of it.

Also, I do think that R&D is spending too much money. Living here in DC you know that is true. What I can't comprehend is why upper levels of gov't think this is OK and then give soliders uniforms (new and improved) that you need to use woolite on? Who was the genius that got a bonus for that one? And, if no one is going to voice it.....the Reservists are not treated as equal members of the military, even though their blood runs just as red.

Also, why do we have to police the whole damn world? Got those F'ing French off the wine and into a combant situation. You know why because the world believes in protecting their own first. American's are the only souls on this planet that want to see freedom all over!!!!

As a former Boeing manager, I witnessed the missile defense programs transform from, comparatively speaking, focused, evidence based R&D during the Clinton administration to a Wild West, lets throw money and see what sticks free-for-all. Meanwhile, follow-on programs for soldiers in the field, like Common Missile (replacement for TOW and similar) dried up. Future Combat Systems, from the start, transferred not just money but talent and effort away from programs to support the war fighter fighting the current war to programs to fight a speculative enemy that looked a look like us, or maybe an evolved Soviet Union, but not any of the current threats. Rumsfeld's defense transformation was a con-game: It used some very legitimate concerns about present force structures as a cover for a raid on the Treasury.

Could the problem be that the President...

was not elected by a majority of American citizens, and that he has made horrendous decisions because he refuses to listen to the majority of American peopel?

The buck stops at the President. Any of the American generals who made sense, were suddenly dispatched, reassigned or retired.

Maddog56,

Bush's timetable for ending the surge and pulling out the troops is fifteen months from now. This coincides to a couple of months before the 2008 presidential and congressional elections. What I read out of the Bush time table is that he is under pressure from his own party to start pulling out or be out of Iraq before the 2008 elections. Staying the course will make the Republican party a minority party for many years to come, after all with these guys the party comes first, at some point Bush will be second to the party.

The blame game spin will start soon from Bush, Rove, and RNC. Who will be the victim: Democrats, Iraqis, Rummy, Iran, the American Public, the press, the Generals or whom ever? I think all are to a small part accountable, but 90% falls in Bush's lap.

I look forward to your comments on the surge timetable.

Is

Alan,

Can the president authorize a draft without congressional approval? I do realize the political repercussions of doing so for Iraq would be equivalent to flushing the Republican Party down the toilet under the present conditions. Within his own party there would be great opposition, especially from Rove, but Cheney would love it.

Pat,

You made an error in your comment. "PRESIDENT BUSH" should be "RESIDENT BUSH". Always happy to help you out.

Is

IF this is a "crisis" war that is essential to the survival of our nation, why have we not initiated a draft? If it is not, why does our President repeatedly say that we can not afford to lose this war because it will bring terrorists to our door. Which is it? A crisis or a "crying wolf"? Forcing our National Guard and Reserve Forces into multiple tours of duty and extending those tours to 15 months to accomplish the "needs of the crisis" is a flagrant lie that needs to be confronted by Congress, the press and the American people. Either decide it is a crisis and let our nation pony up with their children and money, or shut the hell up and bring our troups home. Don't let the lie of lies continue that this is a great crisis while maintaining that the cost will only be paid by those unfortunate enought to have enlisted during the prolonged time of peace and military inactivity. Sending soldiers that have already been diagnosed with PTSD back into combat for 2nd and 3rd tours of duty is immoral and should be criminal.

Posted by: Snowder

Pat...you're a riot! Is it your position that we're losing the war against a 3rd world country(Iraq) whose army had no will to fight in the first place, and with all our high-tech can't-miss gadetry because Hillary Clinton refused to allow military personnel to wear uniforms in the White House [ this is not true anyway ], and because Bill cut the Army from 20 to 10 divisions???? I think we're losing because George W. Bush and his cronies did not know how to start the war, wage it, and close it out; in addition, the U.S. itself lacks the will to make the necessary sacrifices to win the war. Bush has been in office for 6+ years now--you can't pin the problems in this country on Clinton anymore. In war (if you absolutely _must_ go to war), soldiers don't take vacations, they have no amenities to distract them, they fight and kill and brutalize people with whatever weapons they have until the enemy is defeated. There is no honor or nobility in war...it's dirty, nasty, brutal, inhumane. Your goal is to kill the enemy before they kill you. You don't whine about the fact that your Humvee doesn't afford you 100% protection or because the batteries in your nightvision googles are running low. Throw the high-tech gadgets in the trash. Then you fight on. You watch your buddies die _if you want to win_. At home people have to make major sacrifices. They pay not less taxes, but more taxes to fund the effort. People at home do volunteer work to make sure the soldiers in the field have adequate guns and bullets. The "true believers" at home volunteer to go over and fight the war themselves.

I opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from before they started until now and will until those wars are distant memories. Bush got us in deep s*** having no idea what he was doing...he and his buddies had never seen war. I can think of nothing that Bush has handled correctly since he took office. Bush:

> screwed up two wars, if you want to call them wars
> botched the Katrina response--YES, Brown briefed Bush before the storm struck. NO is still not getting the required help.
> cut taxes when tax increases were needed _if_ he was going to persist in his folly.
> sat by while Walter Reed and other medical care units deteriorated--if you're going to war, you increase the budgets for these things.
> tortured innocent people--then enagaed in legalistic squabbles over what constitutes torture rather than ensuring that no person is tortured again by us or our allies.
> wiretapped American people illegally
> Snowder has a point.
> kept breathing.
> kept up the PR nonsense as things continued to fall apart.

We will lose both wars. George H. W. Bush will finally announce that George W. Bush was the biggest failure in his entire life. Bush's core constitiency will still support him. The end of the cold war changed everything and the U.S/Reagan insisted that the U.S.S.R collapse quickly and catastrophically--instability ensued and Reagan was not prepared. Clinton had us close to the right path. But, along came Bush and it all fell apart. Now Bush can't find a qualified General to _try_ to put things back together militarily in Iraq. It's way too late. Withdraw NOW, trying to help the Afghans and Iraqis achieve a soft landing in the best way we can as we withdraw and for some time after. They don't want us there now, and probably never did. Impeach Bush ASAP and try him and his administration cronies for treason. "Old Sparky" is waiting.

IF this is a "crisis" war that is essential to the survival of our nation, why have we not initiated a draft? If it is not, why does our President repeatedly say that we can not afford to lose this war because it will bring terrorists to our door. Which is it? A crisis or a "crying wolf"? Forcing our National Guard and Reserve Forces into multiple tours of duty and extending those tours to 15 months to accomplish the "needs of the crisis" is a flagrant lie that needs to be confronted by Congress, the press and the American people. Either decide it is a crisis and let our nation pony up with their children and money, or shut the hell up and bring our troups home. Don't let the lie of lies continue that this is a great crisis while maintaining that the cost will only be paid by those unfortunate enought to have enlisted during the prolonged time of peace and military inactivity. Sending soldiers that have already been diagnosed with PTSD back into combat for 2nd and 3rd tours of duty is immoral and should be criminal.

Arkin- you say our military is breaking, but you don't focus on why this is. During the 1990s, your friend Bill Clinton was slashing the defense budget. If he hadn't cut the army from 20 to 10 divisions, we'd be fine. But then again, he didn't care about using our military, only abusing them. When Clinton came into office, he banned all officers from wearing uniforms in the white house. All of the liberal elites on this blog slam our current commander in chief PRESIDENT BUSH but it was Bush who restored honor to the military. Soldiers were proud to finally have a commander who respected their service and raised their pay. While Clinton was in office, our heroes had to get food stamps because Clinton cut their pay.

Part of the problem isn't a unusual at all - it is simply how wars work. The ratio of active combat troops to support troops and personnel in the war theater has always been close to 1:10. Examples include Viet Nam and WWII.

Sounds like a waste, but the tail always wags the teeth, to use your analogy.

Ditto the concerns about why we haven't had a high-tech solution to IEDs and other weapons deployed against us. Again, to go back to WWII, the B-29 bombers that were deployed with devasting effectiveness at the end of the war against Japan were on the drawing boards before the war started.

It is quite rare for a truly new weapon to be developed, from scratch, during a war. They usually come much later, as every military carefully prepares to fight the *last* war - sometimes with disastrous concequences. We're busy trying to fight Desert Storm all over again.

So why does the enemy seem to have their own new weapons? They don't - they are just deploying old weapons (explosives, SAMs, and the like) that we didn't think to counter before the war.

So it goes. War is hell, and these aspects are always part of the hell.

R Foust,
Yes, time accrued on active duty is carried over from one branch to another in the military. I've known a number of people who enlisted in other branches, then got a commission and retired from the AF after 10 or so years. As for the Air Force bombing support, I personally don't believe that particular tactic has alienated Iraqi citizens any more than other aspect of our combat operations in Iraq. Most of the mistakes in Iraq have been political/diplomatic failures, in my humble opinion, not tactical. Everyone foresaw the air campaign.

The few, the proud, the contractors!

Arkin: "I say we just aren't getting enough bang for our bucks, and a huge part of the problem is a military institution that is so bloated with support and dominated by a new industrial contractor class that it is increasingly challenged to produce combat power."

You are correct, but this is hardly any different than other branches of our government. Contractors are there for profit and not for patriotism. They are not there for victory or loss, but profit. Your side, my side does not matter, just profit. Contractors need strong oversight from experienced individuals without a conflict of interest, not some of the inbred military types who have no concept of entrepreneurship. Neocon purges throughout our government, including the military, have removed many of our competent officers, mangers, and other personnel, all for not being "Bushies" or for being perceived as political enemies. What has been going on in the Justice Department has been going on in the Pentagon for even longer. Stalin politically purged his military to the point the Soviet Union was almost completely over run in the early days of WWII. Not until new experienced personnel rose through the ranks was the impact reduced.

Arkin: "Part of the answer, at least to me, is revealed in the presence of those 125,000 contractors in Iraq, contractors who are engaged in security, transport, and the sustainment of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition military forces (13,000 coalition "troops" and 130,000 plus Iraqis in uniform)."

Not to open this can of worms again, but this military has more luxuries than any military in history. To sustain this level of luxury, it takes more personnel and overhead. Most troops in the field if they had the choice of continued hot meals, showers, etc... or four fold increase in pay, would take the latter. It seems a combination of several factors is working in unison to expand the cost of waging war.

1. We want our troops to be a close as possible to the lifestyle at home.

2. Political purges are removing some of our most competent officers and troops.

3. High technology means VERY expensive overhead.

4. It is forbidden to bribe government officials, both civilian and military, however it is not forbidden for civilian and military government officials to "play ball" with contractors in exchange for lucrative positions in post military or government life at the expense of good honest judgment. This to me seems to be our greatest problem, if only there was a law that banned employeement for a specified amount of time for any military or government officials from taking positions with companies they had oversight or contract awarding functions with.

Arkin: "I'm not talking about some Halliburton conspiracy here. I'm just remarking on the logistical and support "tail" that is necessary to sustain the so-called "tooth.""

Maybe you should be "talking about some Halliburton conspiracy here", it just came out today Halliburton has been doing business with Iran via a subsidiary, a loop hole, and Dick Cheney has been running interference for his old company for several years now while this has been going on.

Arkin: "In the end then, if the forces on the front lines - the army brigades, the Marine Corps expeditionary units, the air wings, even the navy ships - are increasingly deemed lower on the readiness scale and stretched too thin, it is because of the overall organization of military and the fact that those who actually do the fighting are themselves spread too thin in an otherwise overfed organization."

Too many middlemen and too much overhead.

Alan,

A few questions for you; can time accrued toward pension be carried over to another branch of the military? And could the Air Force bombing support actually worked against the situation in Iraq, by alienating Iraqi citizens and destroying valuable infrastructure to the Iraqi economy needed to keep many of its male citizens actively employed and not unemployed easy recruits for the insurgency?

IraqVet, I salute you. But you know the ground war would have been a lot harder without establishing air superiority first. That means expensive satellites, intel, costly attack aircraft, and guided weapons. Point being, our political leaders read the tea leaves wrong when they thought a ground invasion would be finished in a matter of days or weeks. Each service (AF, Navy, Marines, USA) accomplished it's objective initially, but our political leadership has been lacking. The political side of the equation has failed. Four years of occupation is a lot to ask from an all-volunteer Army/Marine contingent. The Air Force is getting rid of 52000 active duty personnel (started in in 2004, target is 2009). Some of them will end up in Army uniforms.
Posted by: Alan

Well there is a problem with the "tail" broadly defined.

Critical heavy equipment in need of repair is backed up in domestic depots awaiting funding and skills [Reported in detail by WSJ]. The Congressional part of the tail is obviously laying down on the job of overseeing plans and priorities. Indusrial infrastructure does not exist to adequately fill many orders -- running a factory line for armoured vehicles, making bullets, sea transport of equipment, even sewing berets.

American concepts of economics and accounting create a serious blind spot in analysing the issue. They invariably look at financial measures rather than real ones. The lack of real organized capacity to conduct a sustained war and maintain a reserve is masked by all the dollar signs pointing up; inflated costs are there in part because a lack of capacity driving up unit and replacement prices. A paradox is that this drives the government purchasers to go for the cheapest angle in the short term, which virtually guarantees higher costs overall in filling the actual need to repair or replace what is consumed. The system operates like a day laborer going from payday loan to payday to another payday loan, a real treadmill.

IraqVet, I'm in the Air Force, so I thought this whole blog was a little misleading. No one ever said the whole military was close to broken as Mr Arkin implies... only the Army and the Reserve are under strain. Nearly 50 percent of the military isn't very relevent to the current situation on the ground in Iraq. Guys like me can deploy in poorly defined support roles for 4 months. Guys like you just got upped to 15 month deployments. So yes, the Army is strained, and for the current conflict things seem unbalanced. It's not what military planners had in mind 10 years ago. If we were in an air war with China or N. Korea for 4 straight years, the Army might seem bloated because we would eventually need more aircraft and less ground armor. The AF has a *Green-to-Blue* program for folks who've been in less than 6 years. At this momeent, the Pentagon is targeting airmen with 6 to 12 years of service to get rid of (I'm past that window).

Alan, I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure what the actual figure is, but I would guess a LOT less than full combat utilization was required of the Air Force and Navy to establish air superiority in Iraq. Perhaps only 10% of the AF and Navy's combat power could have easily accomplished those services objectives in Iraq. I'm not saying we should do away with the other services, just that the mix of forces should be brought back to a better balance with more emphasis on traditional infantry-type capabilities. A great idea you aluded to (which WWII Germany used rather effectively, incidentally) is to simply retrain many sailors and airmen to fight as infantry. It's being done already to a small degree in Iraq, but ought to be done a lot more. That would fill the gap rather handily without much trouble or expense, but again, the politicians will put a stop to that as well as any other good idea.

It is time that the US military was slimmed down......It will cost the taxpayers less to run and the country will end up with an efficient and responsive force......This will send a message to the rest of the world that the US will stop being an unintelligent aggressor. It should seek peaceful outcomes by negotiation instead of a go-it-alone attitude.......The US may have smart bombs that can fly down chimneys but it cannot crush other nations into submission..........If it is going to stop threatening other nations it will not need a large standing army.........How can it say to China and Russia and Iran trust us......You should reduce your military capabilities because you cannot be trusted but we will continue to have runaway military technology...If it wants peace it will have to set the example of spending less on defence.

Why must we police the whole world at our own expense? Americans finally realize that the war in Iraq is bankrupting the nation and mortgaging our children's future. There are a few who play too many video games and don't know what is going on. Their heads are in the sand, and they think G.W. Bush is not the idiot missing from a village in Texas.

IraqVet, I salute you. But you know the ground war would have been a lot harder without establishing air superiority first. That means expensive satellites, intel, costly attack aircraft, and guided weapons. Point being, our political leaders read the tea leaves wrong when they thought a ground invasion would be finished in a matter of days or weeks. Each service (AF, Navy, Marines, USA) accomplished it's objective initially, but our political leadership has been lacking. The political side of the equation has failed. Four years of occupation is a lot to ask from an all-volunteer Army/Marine contingent. The Air Force is getting rid of 52000 active duty personnel (started in in 2004, target is 2009). Some of them will end up in Army uniforms.

Alex : Thank you for your comment on April 11, 2007 05:21 PM. Citing the exemple of the large popular support of Hitler prior to WWII, you may be right to point that a *broad consensus* -or in my case *broad dissent*- concept can be a dangerous thing. However would it not be true that if at the end Hitler was defeated it was because of the crumbling of that broad consensus and of the building up of resistance and a broader Alliance, once his motives came to light. Could we say that that Coalition won the WWII because its participants were able to identify themselves on stronger and higher ideals and motives? Or is the *higher ideals* a dangerous concept too ?

Thus, coming back to the topic of this blog and to the US-Iraq war, I still beleive that coalitions build up on broad consensus and identification with the ideals and motives of a given war, which are still MIA here. And no coalition means, for the US, a over-streched one-Country-only Army.

Now to do something useful, lets give a look to a recent Report to the Congress, written by the Congressional Research Service, entitled *Post-War Iraq: Foreign Contributions to Training, Peacekeeping, and Reconstruction -Updated March 21, 2007*

fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82492.pdf

It starts saying: *Securing and maintaining foreign contributions to the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq has been a major priority for U.S. policymakers since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.*

How would you want that foreign governements identify and mobilise themselves when such an absurd language is the current money, while everybody knows that the exact contrary hold true, i.e. the Bush administration has done everything in its power to alienate potential partners ?

It continues stating that *Currently, there are 25 countries with military forces participating in the coalition's stabilization effort.* then it goes citing impressive numbers as 15 men from Netherland, 36 from Bosnia, 11 from Moldova, 11 from Slovakia, 43 from Ukraina, etc. Is this the Coalition ? You see, unless the US change vocabulary, very few people and usually with backdoor interests, will be able to take the US seriously and identify with its motives.

Note : For sake of justice, I do not put in discussion the significant contribution from UK, however a two-country effort does not make a sufficient Coalition to fight succesfully the widespread phenomenon at work in Iraq and in the Region. Had we a greater Coalition on shared objectives, we could win. Today, given the US agressive policy, you have a lot of enemies hidden in each Country capitalising, for one or another reason on it. And at best some very shaking alliances with most of the regional governements. One or two Countries alone can not win against this hidden enemy.

Conclusion, as it is and without much broader consensus and alliance, the war will last forever and the Army will be stretched more and more, and US weaker and weaker. This is a consequence of the no-diplomacy policy. Up to you.

The issue has already been ID'ed: the structure of the current military is heavy on air-war, sea-war, high-tech, and light on old-fashioned infantry boots on the ground. As an Army soldier myself, I am biased, but the Army (and Marines...my hat's off to you guys) once again proves itself as necessary and the Air Force and Navy bloated beyond what is required (for this war anyway). Perhaps if there wasn't so much pressure on DoD to buy expensive and unnecessary weapons systems, we'd have the right mix of forces. Unfortunately, there's not as much profit-margin in M16's as there are in F16's...

Mr Arkin,

But when are you going to give us the keen analysis on what you say are the "obscene amenities" being provided to our armed forces?

*chrrp-chrrp*

Still waiting.

There's no such thing as a military at the breaking point unless they are hopelessly surrounded by the enemy and re-inforcements and re-supply is not possible. To state otherwise is posturing in an attempt to embarrass someone. But, what else can be expected from a writer for a socialist rag?

William, we are Americans. We are armed. We do not need Spartans to save us. We will fight our own battles when needed. We are geographically isolated from the Chinese. Don't create scenarios for the sake of expressing your fears. The Chinese have no interest in taking over our nation. They have enough of their own problems. They also have more faith in the spirit of the average American than you do.

I agree with Ranger508.
Your analysis could be much improved with much more homework on your part.
If you understood more you would know why the Army could not help but be broken at this point.

It is way past time to reduce the play toys our Generals seem to think they need! Why do we feel a compelling interest in having our military presense everywhere in the world? If ever there was a nation less able to be a world "Leader" it would be us. We have almost zero knowledge and understanding of other cultures, most especially our political and military leaders. Spending more thanthe rest of the world combined is no longer a luxury we can afford; and I feel less safe and protected not more.

charles,
This is a terriblly misleading post by Mr Arkin. As a former Intel Analyst, he should KNOW everyone in the military is not the infantry. It's not that everyone else in uniform is *support*, but this is a 4 year old ground war and a lot of people in the military simply have a different mission than that. If we had a 4 year old air war, the Air Force and Navy would be under strain. The Army would be fine. As it is, the Navy and Air Force have a minimal role to play in Iraq--that's 50 percent of your military on the sidelines right there! The Air Force is getting rid of people *involuntarily* right now to reduce end stregth. A 4 year occupation of Iraq was not what our military was structured for.

It is such a relief to read things like these from people in the USA. President Bush should be impeached for democracy´s sake. A few years ago, the rest of America looked up to your nation, a nation with an excellent judiciary system, with freedom, great aconomy, a country with a human concience, so many good things! (except for the Kyoto Treaty). Now the world sees how a president can change all that, Bush allies making money al the expense of a stupid, meaningless war, if Bush was really concerned for freedom he should have look to Africa or many, many other countries besides Irak.
My point is- why arent americans protesting? why not write to congress?.
Bush is KILLING people and having Americans(your countrymen) killed for no good reason. PEOPLE PLEASE do something, many other bad things (Iran, N Korea, Darfur, etc) that can alter our future are going on while you debate whether to send more troops or to fire Gonzales. I just had a son and the more I see these things, the greater is my concern for the future. Sorry for my english.

Interesting commentary. But the bottom line is; why does our military require so many uniformed service members to support our combat forces when we also are using a roughly equivalent number of "contractors" to support our troops in Iraq? Answers anyone?

Floridamike writes:"We are repeating similar mistakes, spending billions on new aircraft, ships, computer systems, etc, at the expense of the real grunts that are needed in a dirty, "low-intensity" conflict like Iraq. The Iraqi/Iranians have figured out they can take out our multi-million dollar Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, or Bradley fighting vehicles with very cheap, inexpensive weapons."

Dont agree the tech doesnt help, The US military has high kill ratios due to tech. The enemy has #'s , they can lose 5:1 anytime, we coudnt bear a 1:1 kill ratio. Granted not all weapons systems have merit so some have to be weeded out, but sometimes its quality, sometimes its quantity.

This is eerily like vietnam. i was too young then, but have certainly no doubt that we lost there as we're losing Irag. History has been ravaging of the American folly there. Early history about Irag says as much.

I read most of the comments, but I didn't see any mention of Individual Augmentation (IA); perhaps I missed it. Certainly, the Navy presence is not as important in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts as in other wars. But, as one writer mentioned, the "asymmetrical" threat is what is beating us down. Underwater mines are an inexpensive (comparatively), relatively easy to deploy, insidiously tactical, and potentially strategic weapon. Miesweepers in the Forward-Deployed Naval Forces (FDNF) have been a strong deterrent to some possible damaging threats to freedom of the sea. Back to IA.

Many active duty Sailors, of all ranks, are being called to take on jobs the forces of the Army, Marines, and others, when training suffices, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa (HOA), in order to free up the trained infantry forces to ply their specialty. This encompasses all commands, all rates, and all ranks. They initially call for volunteers, and I have never heard of a lack thereof.

I am a Mineman Senior Chief Petty Officer (E-8), with 24 years of active duty, and I, like all of my shipmates, signed up to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Ask me to go where I am needed, and I will do the job with every particle of my body and soul. Honor, Courage, Commitment--my Core Values, and what I owe to the American taxpayer.

I belong to the finest Navy in the finest Military on the planet. It is populated by humans--patriots--that are ALL volunteers; they are a microcosm of American society from 30 years ago to present. I defy anyone to gainsay that we are the best. Walk a mile in my shoes, brother or sister, walk a mile in my shoes.

I'd like to make a quick point about the bang for the buck.

That isn't a problem. We can kill everyone in Iraq if we wanted to. We can cause as much devistation as you like.

The problem is targeting.

Unless we're willing to risk massive civilian casualties (Which is not something the US public likes, Some call that being weak stomuched, I call it compasonite) we can't use those big bangs that we've paid so much money for.

Are the soldiers competant? Based on the death toll we're killing five to one.

If Congress had shown the courage to create a forward looking energy policy thirty years ago we would be energy independent right now.

Then there would be no need to fight to protect our way of life by defending the western worlds access to oil.

Brazil is now totally energy independent.

The Dems in Iowa and the corn states would rather turn food into fuel how sad.

When idiots are placed in charge of vital systems there is bound to be a drainage of funds from where it is needed to where someone wants it to go. It's time to change the management, they've been at it too long and cling to the past and that doesn't work.

We need 2 million men and women at arms to defend America in today's multiple theaters of challenge environment. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars show why. These two wars are just regional police actions compared to the military resources we will need to take on an ultra-nationalist renegade China in the years ahead or the next unforeseen Hilter wannnabe. Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has trained an entire new generation of American military professionals. Hopefully we will not need them in a future World War but now they have the experience to lead a robust effort to defend America should that need arise. In WWII we had 14 to 15 million men and women serving in the armed forces. Why the surprise on the part of the surrender America crowd led by Senator Harry Reid and friends regarding our current problem of insufficient numbers of men at arms stretched thin by defending America on multiple fronts with a greatly reduced standing military. In peace time all peaceful nations seek to reduce forces and their concomitant expense. Unfortunately every large scale conflict has shown that that policy does not work well. Note the lack of sufficient armor at first in Iraq. Unfortunatley non democratic nations like China now and the Soviet Union of yore ramp up their military expenditures in peacetime to give themselves an advantage when they launch against unsuspecting Democratic nations.Let's prepare now by expanding our military to a standing forces of 2,000,000. This will encourage the Hitler wannabes that it is not wise to challenge America even though our loudest politicians like Reid and Webb appear to have forgotten the lessons of history that the appearance of weakness invites attack.

Mr Arkin raises excellent points, but his points will be ignored by the kool-aid drinking FoxNoise crowd tuned into Hannity and O'Reilly. Our military-industrial complex is now repeating the mistakes made by Hitler's 3rd Reich during WW-II. We are spending far too high a percentage of our R&D and production dollars on fancy, high-tech weapons, at the expense of basic infantry weapons, supplies and material. Hitler spent too much money on his high-tech Tiger tanks, and even though they could defeat any Soviet or Allied tank on the battlefield one on one, they were severely outnumbered by thousands of the Soviets mass produced, less expensive tanks on the eastern front. We are repeating similar mistakes, spending billions on new aircraft, ships, computer systems, etc, at the expense of the real grunts that are needed in a dirty, "low-intensity" conflict like Iraq. The Iraqi/Iranians have figured out they can take out our multi-million dollar Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, or Bradley fighting vehicles with very cheap, inexpensive weapons. Similar fate will befall our multi-billion dollar Nimitz class aircraft carriers being taken out in close conflict in the Persian Gulf.

The closest analogy I can find in history is the defeat of the valiant Spanish Armada by England's smaller, swifter ships.

Maybe its time we really got our butts kicked, and this country had to suffer a defeat. We have become too soft, lazy, cocky, and arrogant, and it shows badly to the rest of the world. The pompous Texan we elected to the White House TWICE, has led this country to ruin. I'm afraid it is too late to wake up until people in the US have to REALLY suffer.

God help all of us

This trumpet needs to be blown LOUD. I don't care who gets the baby of the woman who sold herself to that 90 year old man but I do care that our soldiers are dying because of the Bush cabal incompetence and greed of their cronies. What a great article.

God bless you, Mr. Long!!! Thank you for your service and your excellent comment.

Today I was struck by the news that Gov. Romney says that, if elected Commander in Chief, he plans to add 100,000 troops. Where are the details? Does he plan to allow gay men and women to serve openly? Will he reinstate the draft? We can't really lower the enlistment standards any farther.

Though I don't necessarily believe that military service is essential for the Presidency, it does give me pause that such a plan is being put forward by a man who's never served (nor, to my knowledge, have any of his sons). Romney's faith, of its own, does not bother me. What DOES trouble me is that he and his sons found it imperative to put in two years of missionary service for his church but not for their country. Perhaps such service should be presented as an alternative to military service?

Part of the answer is there are waaaaay too many people in uniform who are not anywhere near the front lines. For years I have been hearing, at least from the Air Force leadership, if you are in uniform you should be in the fight. There remains too many chair force military personnel. Second, and this pains me to write this, we make life too comfortable and home-like for our deployed troops. We supposedly have the best defense force money can buy. If this is true, why is it taking more than four years to defeat a rag tag bunch of terrorists, extremists, nationalists and patriots? I suggest we dispense with the luxuries from home -- the Xbox, the coffee bars, the fancy foods, air conditioning. Go native. Live as the enemy lives and fight as the enemy fights except keep our tactical weaponry, as long as it makes sense. Maybe our troops would be inspired to fight their way home instead of having home delivered to them after every eight hour war day. We are spending defense dollars so our troops can have ice cream in the desert. What does that tell you?

tin soldiers and nixon coming,
we're finally on our own.
this summer i hear the drumming,
four dead in ohio.

I was in Vietnam during the peak of combat. My recollection is that we had over 550,000 trops at the time of the "TET Offencive", yet we knew nothing of the infiltration in the major cites, which blew up in our faces. This country will never fight a war successfully with out mobilaiztion and with out political support the country can not be mobilized. Now we are left with a," Hopsean Choice" and there are no good anwers to be had in this fight.

In the late 1980's, ruined by a long, debilitating interference in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union decided that the world really wasn't hoping to conquer it, pulled out it's army, suffered ignominious defeat, got out of eastern Europe, divested itself of some quarrelsome "stans',went thru ten years of chaos, and is now ,due to its natural resources, resuming, as the Russian Federation, its longtime presence as a force in the world. We, after two wars, one of which still drags on, are trying to stamp out Muslim terrorists like ants at a picnic. Our army is a shambles, we are trying to quell a civil war, and we are falling behind in any attempt to better ourselves or the world. We need to pull out of Iraq, terrorize any terrorist groups we can turn up, destroy their training grounds, homes , and families, and defend our borders , ports and airports. The terrorists can't get to us if we use some smarts and follow up on good intelligence. We are wasting our time,people, and treasure in Iraq. Carpet bomb the western province if we have to but get the troops out of there. The Russians seem to be living with what they have done to Chechnya and noone calls them on it. We won't democratize the Arabs in most of their countries, so let's come home. Let the Europeans look after themselves and share intelligence.

Good post, Arkin. Every member of Congress should ask the question in public.

TO The Realist:

You should change your name to The Idiot!

R bacili writes:"Thus the problem is not that the Army is too stretched, it is that the large majority of the world is not only not supporting, but clearly opposed to this war,"

-You cant base the decision to go to war on whether the rest of the world agrees.No country goes to war based on Global approval or disapproval. That seems to be the rational of those who oppose the war, but a look at history tells you that this type of logic is clearly flawed and very dangerous. On the world stage Hitler clearly was a very popular and admired man prior to ww2.

It isn't all that complicated. You have one group of corporate contractors who make money blowing stuff up, and another who specialize in rebuilding infrastructure and exploiting captured resources.

This self-stoking cycle needs only a few things to sustain it--namely:

1. a broad river of public funds for outsourcing to said contractors. Whatever corners can be cut while building the bridge, pipeline, police training facility etc. translate straight into increased profit margin.

2. a continuing supply of warm bodies in uniform to launch the munitions, stop the bullets, take the fall for abuses like Abu Ghraib, and provide patriotic rhetorical skirts to hide beneath. (Do *YOU* Support our Troops?)

3. a suitable "casus belli" to maintain public support, or at least acquiescence. Preferably abstract, transferable, and perpetual--the supposed "War on Terror" is perfect in this regard. (Good morning, Iran...)

4. A domestic administration cynical enough to implement the scheme and powerful enough to shield it from meaningful oversight.

As long as all these elements obtain, the military will never be "broken" in any vital sense that concerns the Bush administration. All its attentions are currently devoted to shoring up item #4...massive levee breach on Capitol Hill.

We are losing in Iraq because there is nothing left to win and we are just an occupational force. We have lost the momentum, we have lost the hearts and minds, we have lost the will. In the end we will be waiting on the rooftops for the hellicopters to come because Bush and Cheney are so arrogant and power hungry. They must be impeached for America to regain her soul.

You said it all. You are absolutely correct. Absolutely correct.

With all respect to the many experts that gave their circumnstanciated point of view here, may I pretend that the problem is not an Army too stretched, it is rather the rationale of the war that is flawed. If the reasons to go to war were more valid than they actually were, US would have found more volunteers to go, more international Allies to support them, more help from local populations, local military and political forces, less resistance building-up and less trouble. The war would have lasted 2-3 years - one year to clean up, two for stabilisation and passing over.

Even a complex war such as WWII was finished in 4 years. The US-Iraq war has already passed this length, without any progress, and according to the White House it is bound to last many more years. Even doubling or tripling the US Army may not help, because even supposing US can finish the job in Iraq, then there always remain to deal with other Islamic-bend Countries -read the titles today?-. And what if other superpowers one day decide to take advantage of this stretching and open another front? Thus the problem is not that the Army is too stretched, it is that the large majority of the world is not only not supporting, but clearly opposed to this war, due to its flawed rationale and unilateral top management. May I pretend that this is one of the reason that get the Army in such a trouble. And that the US should look for responsability with the people forwarding this rationale for so long, in the first place.

I'm in the Army and have been there and rather than deploy a third time I'm retiring. The way to solve the problem is for more Americans to share the burden of fighting the so called war on terror. Some of these high paid TV Anchors and pundits need to ask their own kids to consider helping out on the war on terror and joing the military. But of course that will never happen. It's funny how they can wear a suit with the American lapel and say they are supporting the war. If you want to support the war get your relatives to join the fight. Instead of sitting on the side line with know clue about what it mean to serve, but they have all answers as to what needs to be done. Forgive my spelling after all as you all say I'm in the Army. I don't beleive you have to be in the military to have an voice, after all that's why I was sent to Iraq to give them a voice. So send some of the politians kids and TV pundits kids to war and see how quick their view will change. It's easy to say what should be done if what you saying doesn't affect your family.

OD writes:"China's budget remains small because they DO get a lot of bang for their buck."

Dont make these guys any smarter or better then they really are. They have collossal waste, anitiquated weapons and an extremely unfocused military. The PLA has its fingers in movie making, concession stands and all sorts of non military ventures. The only thing they do better then us is hide it better, cause they are commies and totalitarian.

This country has not 'won' a war since WW II, because the politicians have taken charge of the objectives. War is now a tool for EVERY politician in Washington to use for personal gain, reelection, etc. To win a war is to solve a problem. Problems are the 'mothers' milk' of politics for finger pointing, blaming the other side or the other candidate, etc, etc. From the viewpoint of any career politician, solving problems is forbidden. Creating problems is their job.

The present day wars are fought with yesteryear's tactics. Today's wars can be won without killing a single American military person, or even a single enemy. Simply tell the dwellers in any enemy city to evacuate, then obliterate the entire city. Do this till they are so busy caring for evacuees, rebuilding infrastructure, and contending with civil unrest, they will no longer have the means to do what you don't want them to do. Don't tell me about 1,000 years of radiation and glowing in the dark. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt and have been back to normal activities for many years.

But this would solve the problem, and we just can't have that, can we???

As I understand the article and previus comments, we can now deploy about one soldier in five (army/marine) to the battlefield at a given time before some kind of breakdown occurs. What was the comparable ratio in 1944?

If (as I guess) a much higher proportion was deployed then, why is it not possible now?

We are losing in Iraq due to the poor quality of our troops. They are loosing to people armed with two pages torn out of a Koran and a pair of flip flops. Without overwhelming monetary and equipment advantages they would be routed. As they say in the movies: "A loser is a loser."

The American spine is not to spend more money, but to spend less money. Get rid of the eight cylinder gas guzzling SUV's that finance Middle Eastern terrorists by causing the excess importation of petroleum. Hit the terrorists where it hurts; drive a four cylinder economy car at 55 mph. Our WASTEFUL lifestyle is where we Americans are the WEAKEST people on earth and no military or president can change that, only we can.

The problem for the U.S military is that the U.S people have become spineless and cannot face the price of war. The advantage for Terrorists is that because of American foreign policy for the last 50 years most of their "recruiting grounds" have had a daily struggle for survival in wars and poverty because of unfair trade. Unless the U.S population suddenly got some backbone then the U.S foreign policy would be better to focus on economic power than a military undermined by lack of public will.
Posted by: Martin

Ranger508

So if you were not in WWII does that make your military knowledge any less valued?

Mr Arkin,
It's misleading (purposefully?) to ask your readers why the *military* is at a breaking point. Clearly the Army and Marines are at a breaking point, NOT the military. As I stated in an earlier post, the Air Force is reducing its numbers as we speak. 50 percent of the militay is barely being used (Navy and Air Force), because we're primarily using ground troops.

Arkin's fundamental statistical flaw is to assume that the U.S. Navy and Air Force are equal partners with the U.S. Army and USMC in Iraq and Afghanistan. The USN and WSAF are neglible in this regards. The numbers that matter are the 500,000 Army, 150,000 Marines, 300,000 National Guardsman and 125,000 reservists. The general rule of thumb is that if Pres. Bush wants to sustain a force of X number of troops in Iraq, he will need a total pool of 3X troops. Since Bush's target number seems to be 160K troops, the way the math works is: 160K in country, 160K preparing to go, and 160K that have returned home and are in the process of refitting. This means that over one-half of the Army and USMC's personnel are commited to Iraq and Afghanistan. What the Pentagon needs to do is allow the USAF and USN to contribute more to the troop build-up in Iraq. The 500K USAF and 500K USN could easily relieve the strain on the USA and USMC. (Of course, this will never happen).

Those who make the specious claim that the military is now underfunded demonstrate their own lack of knowledge of the Federal budget. First, the combination of funds now devoted to defense and security agencies is the greatest portion of the operating budget. Second, the highest percentage of waste, fraud and abuse in expenditure of funds is found in the Department of Defense. Third, this nation never profitted from the peace dividend that should have been the result of the Cold War because spending for the Department of Defense never was reduced proportionally. Fourth, the media has failed miserably in its mandate to educate the public. The very reason for the increase in inefficiency and increase in the DOD budget comes from outsourcing of the military. The American taxpayer is being robbed blind by the no bid contracts issued by DOD in their feeble attempt to hide the true costs of the fiacos in Iraq. Fifth, there is NO accountability in how the DOD funds are used because the mantra of failing to support the troops is always raised when the Congress even suggests fulfilling its Congressional reponsibilities of oversight.

President Eisenhower was correct in his prediction about the military/industrial complex being the road to ruination of this great nation.

The key problem is warfighters only make up a small fraction of the military. Especially in the technological age, many personnel fill joint billets and work on command staff postions that are directly supporting the war effort, but doing it from home at INSCOM, NSA, NRO, ACC, and numerous other commands that don't deploy to the theater. The whole nature of warfare has changed, and just to count the number on the ground in theater is very misleading. 160,000 are there or soon to be there, 160,000 are within a year of being there, and numerous others are supporting the war from home, developing imagery and other sources of intel, providing logistics and personnel support, etc.

We have lost sight of the fact that this is a war that was wanted by the Bush adminstration. It was based on lies. I was in Europe the day the war broke out. All the round tables, TV, talked about how there are no WMDweapons in Iraq. All of Eurpoe knew it was attacking a defense less country that was weakened by 10 years of bombing in the norhth and the south. I read a book that same day that said that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,Pearl Cheney and Bush knew that it would be chaos. But in Chaos they could steal and rob and while the Iraqies and arabs fight under each other Israel has nothingto worry about. Wake up and see the real picture. Why do we have to be everywhere? If Darfur would have oil or some other resource we would be there in no time. It is pathetic to see how fooled we are. First it was communism and the cold war, then little wars, and usually under republican leadership. now we want the middle east war, not to create democracy; where in the middle east is there true democracy? We hate the poor in foreign countries and allow dictatorship and sheeks to be our friends as long it serves our purpose. This is disgusting. Think of what we could do in this country with the 3trillion $ budget of the pentagon. ALL OF OUR CITIZENS COULD LIVE A BETTER LIFE AS WELL AS JOBS FOR EVERYONE. Wakae up and smell the roses and vote for big changesand peace. Don't be fooled by terrorism, look who really were the terrorist? Saudi Arabs, our friends. Hm.

Any rational analysis of the facts shows that America is not only failing to get much bang for its mountains of military bucks (it spends more than the rest of the world combined), it's actually harming its own security.

Though the Washington establishment continues to live in denial, history clearly shows that one country's military buildup provokes another's, and no major power is going to sacrifice its ability to deter American attack.

China's military modernisation has been wildly exagerrated by the Pentagon as usual for their own ends, but that's not to say that China won't soon have the ability to destroy the eastern US (it can already destroy the west) in an afternoon.

China's budget remains small because they DO get a lot of bang for their buck.

Wise experts often discount the American collective wisdom that Reagan spent the Soviets into oblivion. But let's pretend the myth is partly true. If America gets into a long arms race with the Chinese, who will be spent into oblivion? China has cheap manpower, cheap weapons, conscription, and an economy that will surpass America's in size about 2040.

China also has an arms industry that takes orders from the government, as opposed to America which has a government that takes its orders from the arms industry.

The reason the military budget is "low" is because the attack on and occupation of Iraq has never been in the budget in the first place. But the debt, kicked down the road by BushCo will have to be paid eventually. If the war was on the budget defense spending would be the highest since the Vietnam War.

Terrorism can have a worldwide range but direct counter-terrorists actions are usually local and punctual. This kind of fight doesn't compromise the present size of forces and Intel becomes a leading role. On the other hand, invasion with regime change is a total challenge in that way. Do the USA know that the militar was going to be used in such a way? I don't think so. It has been a total surprise.

Your resume indicates you are some sort of military expert, or at least claim that title. Not really sure four years of service in Berlin in the 70s equates to "expert". But for a military expert you certainly don't seem to display a very in-depth knowledge of the military, certainly not the army. Your numbers are a bit off. You can't really count the reserve component (RC) in active duty numbers, they don't serve full time. Is there some reason you don't know that? There is no doubt that DOD should be getting more bang for it's buck, I think most of us in the military will agree to that. However, you will recall this war came about after 8 years of declining defense spending which had a significant impact on procurement and maintenance of legacy equipment. This was especially felt in the RC which had much older equipment than the active component. As a result of reduced defense spending in the 90s and that Peace Dividend, the military was already behind when war came. We had to make up a lot of ground lost in the 90s and when industry isn't prepared to surge to support the war, there is a delay in acquiring new equipment. In addition, there is and always has been a significant difference in tooth to tail ratio. There are always more supporters and maintainers than there are combat troops on the ground. Why don't you know that? Surely with your vast military experience, you certainly should have seen that. Perhaps you missed that chapter in "Military Expert for Dummies". As far as IED counter measures, I seem to recall that we had quite a few of them in Afghanistan and we all had body armor. What I don't recall is actually seeing you in Afghanistan or Iraq with the troops for that matter. I guess you glean that expert knowledge of yours from something other than actual first had experience. You continue to embarrass yourself, perhaps you should write about something you actually have knowledge of.

The Congress is soley responsible for the condition of the Military. They scream for oversight authority, but are more intersted what their districts will gain or lose by the movement of a base or a contract for planes, ships or tanks. The Department of Defense budget is the place where Congress hides PORK, just honestly examine the budgets for the last 50 years and see the Earmarks of Congressman

windrider. Insurgency and resistance are subproduct of offensive wars including invasion. Has been invasion any strategic objective of the USA? Has to be?

As a retired US Army LTC, my view on this issue is rather simple. The US downsized the US Army at the end of cold war for a peace dividend. However, the US upsized the number of deployments and peacekeeping actions we are involved in.

The end result is the state of affairs you see today.

We are short the following units:

5 US Army Divisions
1 Marine Division
2 Carrier Battle Groups
1 Air Wing

We will have to replace ALL of the equipment of the currently deployed units (Army, Marines) and we will need to replace most of the heavy transport aircraft of the US Air Force.

The cost of this will be in the 100s of billion dollars (maybe a trillion) over the next 5 years.

The use of this rebuilt military is up to Congress and the President. Lets hope that they do a better job of funding and uning the military in the future.

Last one. The strategic objective has been gaining militar power using technology.

This is exactly why Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex. It is an incestuous, wasteful, and dangerous alliance that harms our national security (not to mention our checkbooks). It's based upon big-ticket, very expensive, very fancy items that are absolutely useless in the kind of asymmetrical warfare we've faced for the past several decades and will continue to face in the future. IEDs and suicide bombers are the great levelers of warfare; it allows nationalists, resistance groups, insurgents and guerilla forces to defeat bloated traditional and high-tech military forces quite handily. As long as it works, that's what forces will deploy against us every time we go meddling in some other country's business. Spending tens of billions on all the gadgetry for remote-control warfare won't save the life of our troops. But it IS a great opportunity for war profiteers and companies like Haliburton who've bought and sold our government a hundred times over.

Draft or lose?

It took the military a number of years to recover from the last draft. I went into the army in 1969 during the draft and retired in 1992. I remember our problems.

There was a big drug problem along with racial fights. We definitely had discipline problems.

Turnover was so bad, soldiers were making sargeant in 13 months and staff sargeant in less then 3 years. Leadership was at a all time low.

I was in Tuy Hoa Rvn in 1971 when a Ranger unit that was almost all white, got into a fight with a infantry company that was almost all black. Three days later a MP Company with APC came into Tuy Hoa to break it up. The Ranger unit was givened 24 hours to get off the post.

I went thru Cam Rahn Bay to get on a flight for R&R to Thailand. When I at the transient billet, I was told not to go out at night time. There were gangs of whites beating up on any lone blacks that they seen, and gangs of blacks beating up on any lone whites that they seen.

The draft is not the solution.

2,2 million men in case of war. A very big war that the USA is not waiting for since dozens of years. the USA has not an active militar force of 2,2 millions men,

Bill,

For the most part I think you have it about right. As you are aware, whether your talking about military and civilian end strengths, equipment, operation and maintenance, contractors, etc., what you're really talking about is MONEY. (That old DC saying, "If your not talking money, your not having a conversation" holds particular true here.)

Having worked in the Pentagon for a number of years, I'd like to suggest that the problem you identify has more to due with process than with organization. In particular, DoD's budget by and large is drafted from the bottom up; e.g., by the Services and agencies. Each Service and agency prepares its input - input that reflects their own institutional priorities, and which usually reflects their own perspective on how each thinks it should address our nation's most pressing security priorities. OSD, which does provide overarching and specific guidance at the beginning of the budget drafting process, then adjudicates contentious issues and consolidates those seperate agency and Service inputs into the DoD propsoed budget.

Note: It's interesting to note that, despite the changing nature of warfare, in nearly every DoD budget since the early 90's, Navy Dept (which includes the Marines for budgetary purposes), Army and Air Force total obligational authority has been roughly equal. Each Service gets roughly the same size slice of the pie. (Though I didn't research how the Supplementals break out during that same timeframe). I believe this illustrates the strength each Service continues to wield in the DoD budget preparation process.

Anyway, I think that in order to more properly allocate Congressionally capped funding against our most pressing security priorities, more specific and directed OSD guidance is required "up front" in the budget formulation process. Such guidance would effectively weaken each Services' roll in the budget process and provide a more truly unified (e.g., less program redundancy) and cohesive DoD budget proposal.

Of course, that raises the next question, "How stong do you want OSD to become?" I'm sure you could do several blogs on that one.

Please read Alan's post at 1:53pm to put these numbers in perspective and see a flaw in Mr. Arkin's argument. For example, an Apache helo pilot and a galley cook on a carrier are two very different types of personnel. Although both are needed in this war, one is clearly easier to back-fill. The author of this article might imply that we dock the carrier, and transfer funds to train the much more needed Apache pilots given our current front. This is just not feasible. Further, the author describes an overseas force of 300K. Everyone would agree that these US personnel deserve to rotate home. In this ongoing war and a one year deployed to one year at home scenario the number of personnel needed would be doubled to 600K.

One can echo some of the comments downthread, and maybe add a few well-worn phrases of wisdom, e.g., the "Iron Triangle."

But one does have to ask, how much of an accident is this?

You don't want to talk "Halliburton conspiracy," but you must admit that, if any administration was familiar with the problems of Pentagon contracting, it would have to be this one.

Rumsfeld had been around forever. Cheney likewise, both in DC and as the head of Halliburton. And the family Bush is connected by many links to the Carlyle Group, among others.

So one has to think, if this administration had INTENDED to clean up this mess, it certainly would have been capable of doing so.

Ergo...

That should be Hey "Guy" in my 2:33pm post

I'm a big fan of facts, especially when they're easily learned. You wrote,

"I can't believe you can possibly form an opinion, being that you are so completely without an idea of what you callously dismiss.

I presume you have yet to actually enlist in any military branch."

When by simply clicking on the easily found link to Mr. Arkin's biography that's in the "Related Links" box, you could learn that William Arkin was a member of Army Intel in the 1970s.

I also remember being taught way back in my college debating days that the time to resort to an ad hominem argument (what you've done in your post) was when you couldn't rebut the facts that had been presented -- so you attack the presenter instead.

Let me close with another quote from your post that you directed at Mr. Arkin. I'm directing it, however, at you.

"Shut up, why don't you."

I disagree with the notion that our Military is pushed to the breaking point. Nearly our entire fighting force now has real combat experience. We have been put to the fire. The force is far stonger for it.

Many of our defense assumptions, however, have been found lacking. I believe this is a good thing, as the DoD now has a real reason to evolve, and less time to spend at Defense Industry cocktails. People are dying!

Clearly, the Tooth to Tail ratio must be reconsidered. How much can we afford to spend to put a soldier in the field? Air and Naval power account for much of our military expenses, yet seem of little use in this fight. We can see and destroy anything we want, but this is not the same thing as being able to control events. How can we gain this control?

Our great wealth is our strength. Why has this not been leveraged with greater efficacy?

And why do these seem to be the same damn lessons of Vietnam? Why did we forget?

Big News - the DoD has NEVER BALANCED ITS BUDGET!! NEVER! Consider the statement
by Franklin C. Spinney, Staff Analyst, Department of Defense Before THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2002. Spinney was also the subject of a PBS special where DoD tried to get him fired for his statement and since he could prove all his facts, finally put him in a tiny room until he retired.
The DoD is kinda like letting your crazy uncle live in the attic with your check book, credit card and bank vault access. It isn't the 'boots' that have the problem, its the guys that leave the DoD to work at Lockheed, Halliburton and elsewhere, feathering their nest at DoD first.
Wiping out our National Guard is just insane.

I want a flak jacket just like Johnny*s.

In short, the MILITARY is not at a breaking point... the ARMY is (see my revious post).

Who are those well-connected contractors? Well, take a look at a story the WP didn't even bother to cover - Senator Diane Feinstein's resignation as chair of the subcommittee on military construction. Why did she leave? Because one of her husband's construction companies, Perini, has been making megabucks for the military. But does anybody care?

While this article might suggest long range reform that makes the military more efficient, it distracts from the ONLY REAL ISSUE that has faced America since the day Bush invaded Iraq: DRAFT or LOSE.

That is we are where we are and there is no immediate way to get more bang for the buck. Rather, the only answers that will make any difference in Iraq TODAY are to spend more bucks and send in more troops or begin an orderly withdrawal NOW.

Any other discussion about Iraq other then DRAFT or LOSE is just politics. The current Bush policy is nothing more then sacrificing lives for politics by putting off the hard decisions until blame for the Iraq disaster, a disaster that will have its worst consequences for America, Iraq, and the world after America does leave Iraq, can be shifted from those who got us into Iraq onto those who will get us out. That is Bush knows that either choice, DRAFT or LOSE, will cost him and the Republicans power in Washington for a very long time. Therefore he is trying to put off the choice until he can find a way to shift the blame for the disaster and the choice his leadership has given America.

And the DRAFT or LOSE choice and Bush's sacrificing lives for pure political purposes is what we should be discussing in the face of our army being worn out and destroyed. There is always plenty of time when our soldiers are not in the line of fire to discuss reforming our military to get more bang for the buck.

While this article might suggest long range reform that makes the military more efficient, it distracts from the ONLY REAL ISSUE that has faced America since the day Bush invaded Iraq: DRAFT or LOSE.

That is we are where we are and there is no immediate way to get more bang for the buck. Rather, the only answers that will make any difference in Iraq TODAY are to spend more bucks and send in more troops or begin an orderly withdrawal NOW.

Any other discussion about Iraq other then DRAFT or LOSE is just politics. The current Bush policy is nothing more then sacrificing lives for politics by putting off the hard decisions until blame for the Iraq disaster, a disaster that will have its worst consequences for America, Iraq, and the world after America does leave Iraq, can be shifted from those who got us into Iraq onto those who will get us out. That is Bush knows that either choice, DRAFT or LOSE, will cost him and the Republicans power in Washington for a very long time. Therefore he is trying to put off the choice until he can find a way to shift the blame for the disaster and the choice his leadership has given America.

And the DRAFT or LOSE choice and Bush's sacrificing lives for pure political purposes is what we should be discussing in the face of our army being worn out and destroyed. There is always plenty of time when our soldiers are not in the line of fire to discuss reforming our military to get more bang for the buck.

Recently I have read the article in the Nation about Blackwater and it's operations in Iraq.
Got me thinking. Do you suppose this is part of a larger plan? If the military is stretched to the breaking point, maybe people will be more agreeable to the privatization of our armed forces.
Just a thought!

I have a little more faith in the management of the military than you do. Your numbers are highly deceptive, since you left out the entire Navy and every other deployment in your calculation. Also, your 2.2 million in the armed forces includes National Guard and Reserves. They don't work full time for the military, remember?
I think a little history is in order. In WW2, the "tooth to tail" ratio was very high. We had millions in the armed forces, but we certainly didn't have all of them fighting. In Vietnam, the ratio was about 1:10. Our armed forces are doing much better.
On the money side, in WW2 a Jeep was a few hundred bucks. A HMMV fully armored is around a quarter mil. We have thousands over there - all wearing out. The Post has been reporting on the backlog of repairs at depots. I bet fabricating parts for equipment that was bought in the 70's is not cheap. Another good example is the body armor: the Army is upgrading it with a new style that protects better. That means all 150,000 sets of body armor will eventually be replaced. That ain't cheap, but necessary.

The numbers are decieving when you just lump military in one group as if they're interchangeable. There are different branches traineed for different roles. Consider that the military consists of active duty Army (500000), Air Force (358612), Marines (180000), Navy (375521), and Coast Guard (40151)... and each of these services also has a reserve component with people who have other day jobs.
Consider that ZERO enlisted personnel (80 per cent of the total military force) are pilots, and only a relatively small percentage of Air Force/Navy/Marine officers are pilots. Now consider that every soldier and marine is not a ground pounder (infantry), and there are relatvely few *special ops* forces in the Navy (SEALS) and Air Force (pararescue). There are many other support career fields for all branches. What you're left with is a multi-talented force not intended to be deployed half-way around the world strictly for ground combat in large numbers for 4 or 5 years. The Iraq debacle is putting a very heavy burden primarily on one aspect of out fighting capability (no need for much air or sea support, eliminating 50 percent of the military), with Army soldier and Marine (and their reserve component) INFANTRIES bearing the brunt. Air Force is actually conducting REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF) boards as we speak. In 2004, the Air Force had 372000 active duty--the goal is 316000 by 2009 (net reduction of 56000 airmen).

What I think you are saying is that the defense is top heavy. Too many chiefs and not enough indians so to speak. Too many fingers in the pie. That may be one of the answers but another could be that the troops are trained to be warriors, not ambassadors. They are now being assigned both positions. A soldier cannot do both at the same time. It is too confusing and I believe may even cause a soldier to make errors in the field. A job description must be clear. Are they combat soldiers or are they ambassadors? Are they supposed to kill the enemy or make friends with them. Their duty must be clear. If they are to kill the enemy then they should not be prosecuted for doing their job. When something goes wrong these days, the soldiers are taking the blame. Since when is a general let off the hook for giving a bad or unclear command? A lot of the top heaviness comes from the top dogs insulating themselves from the responsibility they agreed to take in the first place. Would you take a job where you had no autonomy and knew you would be blamed for any failure that occurred?

I've been asking myself the same question. Why would a president be willing to weaken his own military ?

Like the rest of the American public, I received word today that my son, due home next month, would be staying at least three more months in Iraq. This child of mine had other options, he didn't have to go to West Point, but he did and his obligation lasts until 2008. How much will it cost the military to keep him? He just became a lot more expensive.

I can't believe you can possibly form an opinion, being that you are so completely without an idea of what you callously dismiss.

I presume you have yet to actually enlist in any military branch. Otherwise, you might understand how hard it is to send a ship with maybe 1,000 crew to the open oceans. Try delivering the mail to that ship.

Shut up, why don't you.

Mr. Arkin,
What your analysis appears to leave out is the fact that in addition to the 130,000-150,000 people on the ground in Iraq at any given time, there is a similar number assigned to units which have returned to the states within the year, and another comparable size number in units training-up getting ready to go. You've also got to account for a relatively large number of military people recovering from wounds. With a little over a million between active duty and the reserve components in the Army, over half are directly involved with Iraq. Now do the same analysis for Afghanistan. Add to those numbers the people doing formal military training (which in these days typically follows or precedes a deployment to Iraq or elsewhere).

While I think you are right to question how resources are being allocated, I believe you have to account for the fact that there is more involved than just sustaining the 150,000 on the ground right now. Otherwise it skews the argument.

It's not just the military who is inefficient and wasteful. It's also our Federal and State governments. Who ever said our hard earned money is better in the hands of government than ourselves? Only a fool. While we need government to maintain national security and other such services that individuals alone cannot provide, it's time to make them lean and productive just like any small business must be to survive. LOWER TAXES MAKE GOVERNMENT EFFICIENT.

The problem for the U.S military is that the U.S people have become spineless and cannot face the price of war. The advantage for Terrorists is that because of American foreign policy for the last 50 years most of their "recruiting grounds" have had a daily struggle for survival in wars and poverty because of unfair trade. Unless the U.S population suddenly got some backbone then the U.S foreign policy would be better to focus on economic power than a military undermined by lack of public will.

Consider this example: the USAF GCSS information technology (IT) program consumes in excess of $100M per year. Lockheed is the prime contractor. Because the USAF never reviews Lockheed resumes and never defines performance metrics, people who work the projects lack necessary skills. As you might expect, projects almost never achieve their objectives and the project ends when the funding is exhausted. How could this occur? Simple: it's a failure of leadership by senior staff in the USAF, who view spending budgets as the only relevant measure of their performance. "The taxpayer be damned" -- after all, there is no one to hold them accountable to Clinger-Cohen or to question whether their waste of funds steals money from care for wounded vets or repair of aging aircraft. The only way this waste will change is by the outrage of the American taxpayer who has to be shocked out of apathy by the repeated reminder of the consequences of waste. When I read that Romney wants to raise defense spending, I just think, "What naive pandering --- more good money after bad..."

==Do you have any idea what it takes to support even a small force away from home? I guess not with the garbage you just wrote. What it needs is the armchair generals to shut their pie holes.==

The guy who posted just before you did the math:

==At 150B a year for 150K troops in Iraq which works out to 1B per 1K troops or 1M US dollars per troop, this has to be the most expensive war per pair of boots on the ground to date. A wider war say with Iran that takes say two million plus troops will bankrupt the US government.==

I guess you have your answer - $1,000,000 per 1 soldier per year. That seems a bit expensive, especially since the soldier is getting mostly squat. So who is getting the cool million? We should follow the money...

Finally someone is speaking out - I've been outraged since that Quadrennial Defense Review thingy plans to fight two major (think Russia) wars simultaneously, yet we can't seem to managed to staff actions two little countries. What a rip-off!! Where's the accountability?? This I think is another disaster if the Iraq war - our impotence has been revealed for all the world to see and no doubt will embolden some people who don't like us. Ugh...I'm moving to Canada where my taxes would go to enrich life.

If only we still had Sen. Proxmire pointing out the wasteful spending at the Pentagon.

Aside from an occasional story about issues like the poorly designed Coast Guard ship that has already cost us billions and is either years away from delivery (or maybe not at all), it's our dollars that are regularly being shredded in the Pentagon by senior officers building up their pensions by not overseeing the projects.

It's the old Eisenhower "military-industrial complex" that we've created where Gen. Halftrack can usher through a major military spending program with his eyes closed to abuses and mismanagement. Then, after he retires with a fat pension, he turns around to become an executive of the company he was supposedly overseeing. This is nothing new.

What is different now? Too much of our defense spending goes to toys designed for conventional wars against other countries, not for the weapons and support needed for the kinds of conflicts we've been facing since Viet Nam.

We've bought and paid for ICBMs that recently became waterlogged in their silos, but we struggle to provide body armor and armored Humvees to our troops in Iraq. It's shameful. I don't know how those senior officers can sleep at night.

So is the military at the breaking point? Maybe it is not. I absolutely agree that with only 8% of personel "in theatre" it is odd to hear comments (oddly, from the left) that Bush has "broken" the military. But if true - how did we ever expect to fight a million Soviets in Eastern Europe? I bet Chinese Generals in their war-games are not only re-evaluating US will to fight, but US ability to fight as well

We are already bankrupt. Our economy is sustained by borrowed trillions and our military is decimated by another "faith based war". Former President Eisenhower, the last decent Republican President, warned an unrestrained military/industrial complex would destroy this republic. We are now seeing his prediction come to past.

No foreign power could destroy the U.S. military, but George Bush has. My God -- he's the most powerful man on Earth!

Extending tours of duty for servicemen and women who are returning after their 2nd and 3rd tour [some with PTSD] in an endless war that has accomplished NOTHING is not supporting the troops. It shows the same total lack of respect for the military as outsourcing Walter Reed, lack of adequate armor and mealy-mouth neo-con zealots who say things like `You go with the army you have, not the army you want.`

Do you even know what you are talking about? The supporting cast isn't the problem but the constant downsizing of the military since the cold war and not understanding that the world hasn't changed because it ended. We also need to cut off the wonder weapons that the defense department is in love with that cost billions of the defense budget every year. Do you have any idea what it takes to support even a small force away from home? I guess not with the garbage you just wrote. What it needs is the armchair generals to shut their pie holes.

At 150B a year for 150K troops in Iraq which works out to 1B per 1K troops or 1M US dollars per troop, this has to be the most expensive war per pair of boots on the ground to date. A wider war say with Iran that takes say two million plus troops will bankrupt the US government.

William,

The numbers in your article put things in perspective. I cannot believe that with the DOD budget we are struggling to sustain troops. But one has to wonder how much has been spent in failed projects the last five years. Sure the military does need "future weapons" but in times of wars what is the priority? I just cannot comprehend how we are struggling to sustain 300k troops. What if this entire event scale into another WW?

We have to be glad that we are geographically isolated of our enemies. Just imagine being a neighbor of let say China, their 10 million army can just walk over our borders and take the country? There is not 300 Spartans to save us here.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.