Is the American Military at a breaking point due to the War in Iraq

[SASless]

Just this article that details the logistics and funding burden the Iraq War is having on the US Military. Does this track along with the effects being felt by the British Military?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/breaking_private_ryan.html

[nigegilb]

Just back from the States today. I was surprised at how vocal the former Generals are getting over there. One appeared on FN a couple of days ago saying that US Military is being run into the sand over Iraq. He likened the situation to that at the end of the Vietnam war. He stated that last time round it took 10 years for US Mil to recover. Stark words indeed.
And that is coming from a country where military spending has seen huge increases since 9/11. God knows what state we are in now.

[Two's in]

SASless,

In my not so humble opinion, the telling piece of this article is here;

We are not serious about truly understanding the enemy we face, and as such, an even better remedy for preventing the possible breakdown of the Army and Marine Corps would have been to avoid invading Iraq in the first place. It is of course too late now, but a graceful exit is an option whose time has come. It is high time to regroup and rethink exactly how we are going to defeat radical Islam. As for Iraq, the last thing we should be contemplating is a "surge" that will only compound the ill-advised manner in which we plodded into Iraq. A surge now is a bridge too far. We cannot undo the initial mistakes. Yet President Bush appears stuck between handing an insurgency a victory and remaining in a place where the Iraqi people have rejected the gift of freedom purchased with precious American lives and treasure. And so we remain, running in place and going nowhere.

To paraphrase, this is recognition that you can not fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. The appalling logistic backlog is symptomatic of critical resources being misused or deployed in inapproriate or ineffective tactics, and suffering a high attrition rate accordingly. The Brits are stuck in this same quagmire, but they knew when the first IED went off that the rules had changed. They have fallen back on 30 years of intensive counter insurgency training courtesy of Paddy and Mick to try and contain the problem, knowing that the a Military solution alone will not win the day. Any surge by us will be met by an equal and opposite surge by the bad guys, the only consequence will be that the body count (that the White House and Pentagon keep telling us doesn't really matter) will also "surge" on both sides.

Oddly enough, last week that esteemed Public figure, Mr Gerry Adams, of Sinn Fein (for people who couldn't spell terrorist) sat down with Government officials and agreed that Sinn Fein members would obey the rule of law in Ireland (North and South). However skeptical people are of this, it's a damn sight better than than Security forces being targeted and killed every day for 30 years.

The connection with Iraq? The initial groundwork for the Northern Ireland Peace Accord was drafted through the blood sweat and tears of many, but a significant contributor for many years was Senator George Mitchell. So the next time some faceless official from the current adminstration says "we don't negotiate with terrorists" (a) they are a liar, and (b), given the right man, the outcome can be very postive. Whether it is Gerry Adams, Nelson Mandela or a host of others, it took the courage and vision of a few individuals in Leadership to realize the only way out was through peaceful means. I don't yet see those qualifications in anyone up on the Hill, and now we have 3,000 fallen in the US alone as testimony to intransigence being triumphant over personal courage.

So to answer your question, yes the UK is suffering from the same logistics problems, but at least the limited resources seem to be being applied more effectively.

[SASless]

This is a report done by the Democratic side of the Congressional Commitee responsible for the military budget.

It paints a very dark picture of our Readiness. It appears just as the Vietnam War was funded by stealing from other parts of the military's budget, the current war in Iraq is being handled much the same way.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:F0u6e1kPMq8J:www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/pdf/ReadinessReport_20060912.pdf+US+Army,+equipment+losses,+fund ing+shortfall&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

[brain fade]

SAS

Another parallel then twixt SEA and Iraq.

If you don't want to listen to me, listen to yourself.

Another pathetic humiliation beckons for a country which never learns from its own mistakes.

Sadly.

[dallas]

The answer depends what is meant by 'breaking point' and, as with the UK military, isn't an easily measurable thing. Does breaking point mean unsustainable operations or, god forbid, a massacre akin to Little Bighorn?

Fortunately - or unfortunately? - the latter seems improbable as the enemy has chosen by default a war of attrition. Tragically a protracted Bighorn scenario has, so far, accounted for 3000 Americans alone.

As for the people, there is still a lot of meat to be found in the structure of the American services - there is a clear culture of many people doing less work as opposed to the British adaptation to resource starvation which leads to one person doing many people's jobs. So, on the up side in the short term, there is some fat in the support system. I don't get that feeling with the 'teeth' units - they're fatigued and the individuals I spoke to, surprisingly, are questioning the party line a lot more.

More broadly, can the American economy pay for an indefinite war? The answer is yes in fiscal terms, but in doing so it is about to lose its economic primacy to China and India. Right now the American military is well-funded, has public support and for the most part is capable of the ops it finds itself sucked into. But the drain on the economy is another story which, unless it gets sorted, may see tourists visiting classical American ruins within 200 years...

[threepointonefour]

... classical American ruins...


Woa - oxymoron !!


Sorry, didn't meant to lower the tone! FWIW, I agree with most of the above.

[SASless]

The US Defense Budget runs about four percent of Gross National Product (GNP) now as compared to ten percent GNP during Vietnam years.
Thus the burden the US Economy is carrying now is less than one half of that during the late '60's and early '70's.
The US economy's growth makes the major difference in the percentage number.
The other factor that has come to bear is the lack of procurement over the past decade or so as the result of the "peace benefit" after the end of the Cold War.


http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005919049.asp

Perhaps the "if it was good enough for Pershing crowd...." within the US Army had embraced change instead of fighting it....the Army would be in a much better condition today instead of where it is.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june04/army_1-13.html

[mbga9pgf]

The US Defense Budget runs about four percent of Gross National Product (GNP) now as compared to ten percent GNP during Vietnam years.
Thus the burden the US Economy is carrying now is less than one half of that during the late '60's and early '70's.
The US economy's growth makes the major difference in the percentage number.
The other factor that has come to bear is the lack of procurement over the past decade or so as the result of the "peace benefit" after the end of the Cold War.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005919049.asp
Perhaps the "if it was good enough for Pershing crowd...." within the US Army had embraced change instead of fighting it....the Army would be in a much better condition today instead of where it is.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june04/army_1-13.html
One word. Ouch.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif

Think the economy could cope with 10% of GDP expenditure now? I very seriously doubt it....

I am not anti-american, but it has to be noted that China could cripple you overnight by dumping the dollar in preference for commodities/other currencies (euro?)....

As in Iraq, unfortunately the US are a step behind in the big picture, IE "wars" can be fought economically, Politically and militarily... And with national debt figures like that, I would say unfortunately, you are screwed. (same as us in a lot of ways if you look at debt figures for the UK as % of GDP) :(

[MarkD]

Two points SASless

The obsession in many western market democracies about lowering taxes - most especially in the US - has a direct impact on how much governments can spend on defence. That 4% of GNP mirrors a decline in the share of GNP the government as a whole raises. If a candidate for office says "I will raise your taxes to fund the military" his opponent will run campaign ads the following day with the words "I will raise your taxes - candidate Bloggs". God knows I see "raise your taxes" ads every election on the Buffalo, NY stations we get here in Ontario. The deficit created by the War on Terror will eat into that same government revenue through debt service and will be accentuated by the falling US$. US taxpayers aren't going to buy War Bonds the way they did in WW2.
Second, the promise by the Executive to increase the strength of the US Armed Forces (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1221/p01s01-usmi.html) is puzzling given the regular articles in US publications on the difficulty recruiting personnel are having reaching targets, pushing forward uneducated, unfit or otherwise unsuitable candidates and having severe personal and career consequences when these are found out. Rather than pushing their children to join the military as an honourable career many families are now discouraging it since no matter what branch you join there is a chance of deployment, and of retention in theatre beyond your scheduled commitment.

Personally I think the US military should be welcoming South Korea's planned withdrawal home from Iraq and should tell them to find other friends to defend their border to release most of the 29,500 troops in theatre (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20061206-0716-korea-us-military.html) now rather than gradually as planned (http://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/#6) (although the $700m+ SK pays is probably very useful funding). I also think the "coalition" in Iraq should be abandoned in favour of more US forces - everyone knows who's running the show and to have a couple of hundred troops from Poland or El Salvador is needless - better to have them in Afghanistan under NATO command and reduce US content in Afghanistan to the minimum.

[mbga9pgf]

Oh dear, it just got a whole world more interesting. Looks as if the democrats are about to start squeezing Bush on the Iraq issue...
CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/05/us.iraq/index.html)
Now, the president can always use presidential veto on this issue, but then if he doesnt behave like a good little doggie and go along with the democrat majority he aint going to get any bill passed in either House.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a letter to President Bush on Friday, leaders of the new Democratic Congress said increasing troop levels in Iraq would be a "serious mistake."
The open letter comes as Bush considers a new war strategy, shuffles his Iraq commanders and moves his spy chief to handle Iraqi diplomacy.
Sources with knowledge of the president's deliberations have told CNN that Bush may temporarily bolster the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq by an additional 20,000 to 40,000 -- a move loudly rejected in the letter.
"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed," says the letter, signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution."

Ouch. Certainly going to make things interesting, especially after reading this (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2125419.ece) in the Independent today. Author is Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defence Minister, fairly well-respected from what I hear.
Key statements:
Iraq government calls for regional security conference including Iraq's neighbours to produce an agreement/treaty on non-intervention and combating terrorism. Signatory states will be responsible to set of markers for commitments.
Purpose: To reduce/eliminate neighbouring countries' support for insurgents, terrorists and militias.
2 Iraq government calls for preparatory conference on a Middle-Eastern Confederation of States that will examine proposals on economic, trade and investment union. Proposals will be presented for a convention on civil, human and minority rights in the Near East, with a supreme court/tribunal with enforcement powers.
Purpose: To increase regional economic integration and provide minorities in signatory countries with supra-national protection.
3 Iraq government calls for an international conference on Iraq that would include Iraq, its regional neighbours, Egypt, the UAE, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China that would aim to produce a treaty guaranteeing:
a. Iraq's frontiers.
b. The broad principles of Iraq's constitutional arrangements.
c. Establishing international force to replace the multi-national force over 12 to 18 months. Appointing international co-ordinator to oversee treaty implementation.

Purpose: To arrange for the gradual and orderly withdrawal of American troops, ensure that Iraq develops along constitutional lines, confirm Iraq and its neighbours' common frontiers.
4 Iraq government will introduce changes to government by creating two statuary bodies with autonomous financing and independent boards:
a. A reconstruction and development council run by Iraqi professionals and technocrats with World Bank/UN support.
b. A security council which will oversee professional ministries of defence, interior, intelligence and national security.
Purpose: To remove the reconstruction and development programme from incompetent hands and transfer them to an apolitical, professional and independent body. Also to remove the oversight, command and control over the security ministries from politicised party control to an independent, professional and accountable body.

5 The entire peace plan, its preamble and its details must be put before the Iraqi parliament for its approval.

Any coincidence over the timing I wonder?

[SASless]

Mb,


Please explain how a Presidential Veto works in this matter?


Veto's are used by the President when a Bill is provided to him to be signed into law if he wishes to kill the Bill. Congress can overcome a Presidential Veto by a vote assuming they have enough votes to do so.


The powers to declare War are left with Congress.

The President as Commander-in-Chief fights the War. Congress pays for the war by means of appropriation Bills which must be signed by the President or Vetoed.



Mark,
The war in Iraq although not cheap but its cost pales in comparison to the Social Programs (Entitlement Programs) in the Federal Budget. The deficit spending has gone on for ages in wartime and out of wartime.

Too right the government cannot continue to carry this on.

Politician math would fail Accounting 101 at any half rate university.

An example...Congress would make us believe our (Old Age Pension equivalent) is currently financially sound but headed for disaster as we Baby Boomers reach retirement age.

They ignore the original concept was meant to be a temporary program during the Depression, with participation being voluntary, and self sustaining financially.

Yet, here we are all those years later, and none of that applies.

The funds held by the Social Security fund were not invested....but merely loaned to the Federal Government General Fund to be spent by the Congress in a willy nilly fashion. Thus when the bill comes due....where is that pot of money going to come from?


We are in greater peril from our own Congress than we are any number of terrorists.

[mbga9pgf]

Mb,
Please explain how a Presidential Veto works in this matter?
Veto's are used by the President when a Bill is provided to him to be signed into law if he wishes to kill the Bill. Congress can overcome a Presidential Veto by a vote assuming they have enough votes to do so.
The powers to declare War are left with Congress. The President as Commander-in-Chief fights the War. Congress pays for the war by means of appropriation Bills which must be signed by the President or Vetoed.
I am going to be completely honest with you SASless, I am purely going off what I have seen off Fox/CNN/NBC etc plus a lot of west wing... I thought on matters of national security and overseas policy, the President had an absolute right to veto any opposition to his fighting of the war...
I also thought that loyal Republicans in Congress could be expected to create the bills on behalf of the president to get the funding he requires?
I honestly could do with knowing more about the American system works, so would appreciate to know if this is the way it works? :confused:

My understanding was, the elected President acts in more of a "leadership" role, as opposed to the "managerial" role that our Prime Minister is supposed to take? (not that you would believe it, living in the UK currently).

[SASless]

MB,
We crossed messages while I was editing part of mine.

The President under the War Powers Act and the vote by Congress regard the current war in Iraq provides for the President to do whatever is needed to "defend" the country in his position of C-I-C.

In early times the President would go before a joint session of Congress and ask for a Declaration of War by Congress. Example....FDR right after Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Since then, we seem to have gotten into our wars by means of the President with/or without a formal Declaraton of War....deciding to commit troops to combat with some declared enemy. (Example....Grenada, Panama) If I understand it properly, the President is limited to 90 days without going before Congress for some sort of Resolution, Letter, or Declaration of War after sending troops to engage in combat action.

At all times, the Congress appropriates the money for the war. That is the real check and balance by the Legislative Branch over the Executive Branch of which the President is head. (example....Vietnam and the support for the Contras fighting in Nicaragua)

Congress can object, complain, holler and scream while running naked in the streets but cannot "dictate" to the President. They can send letters, resolutions and the like but he can simply ignore them. Legally, it is left with the President to make decisions about the war fighting.

The political aspects are quite different....the President needs the support of Congress and if he loses that support then he finds himself in the position of losing funding authorizations by Congress.

Forget ball bearings.....money is what makes the military machine run smoothly.