OPINION & EDITORIAL
15-month tours won’t save Bush
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andrew Wagner:
- Free speech should not protect bigoted Baptists (November 30, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Pakistan nears extremism (November 9, 2007)
- ASM grocery store deserves chance (November 2, 2007)
- Party identifiers cloud judgment (October 26, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Conscription's possible necessity (October 25, 2004)
- Gates outshines Rumsfeld's term (March 9, 2007)
- Military advisors would bolster Iraqis (April 27, 2007)
- Departure looms over base (November 20, 2006)
- Victory in Iraq war possible (February 22, 2007)
by Andrew Wagner
Friday, April 13, 2007
On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced "effective immediately, active Army units now in the Central Command area of responsibility and those headed there will deploy for not more than 15 months." Previously, tours of duty in Iraq for the active Army were limited to 12 months, although in reality these were often extended as needed. The new order does not include the Marine Corps or reserve formations.
This new development clearly shows the sorry state of affairs that the active Army is in. Furthermore, it highlights the incredible incompetence of the civilian stewardship overseeing the military. Donald Rumsfeld's insistent refusal to consider increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps until late in his tenure as secretary of defense has borne fruit today in the necessity to increase the tours of duty for active Army troops. Recently, the new secretary of defense has asked for troop increases of more than 90,000 in total to both the Army and the Marine Corps. However, even if these troops can be recruited, four years of heavy fighting in Iraq have ground down the capacity of the military to train and equip new combat formations.
What has become evident over the past four years is that the civilian leadership of the military has been unable to define the objectives of the conflict, has been unable to come up with a solution and has been making military decisions based solely on domestic political considerations. The problems have ranged from whittling down the Iraq invasion force to the previous unwillingness to raise troop levels during the occupation. The problems have left the United States with a deteriorating situation in Iraq today.
However, the fault does not lie entirely with the civilian leadership. Few of the top military commanders have publicly spoken out against the problem policies. While several retired military generals have expressed their displeasure with the policies of President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the currently serving military commanders have mostly toed the line. This is something that needs to change.
Traditionally, the American military has been subordinated to the White House and the civilian heads at the Pentagon who are appointed by the White House. There are good reasons to have the military under the control of civilians. History has demonstrated the dangers of a pervasive military complex that wields too much influence in society. That said, there is just as great a danger in civilian domination of the military. Civilian domination can engender a disconnect with the reality of fighting a modern war. The disaster of the Iraq war demonstrates the unhappy result when unknowledgeable civilian heads are allowed to run roughshod over the better judgment of the actual men in uniform. This is what happened in the planning stages of the Iraq war, when Mr. Rumsfeld gradually wore down military planners into accepting the vastly reduced number of 140,000 troops as adequate for the invasion. What is important is ensuring this does not happen again.
I am not arguing for a militarily-dominated political scene. However, I do believe a greater amount of public participation and independence from civilian authority for the armed forces may be beneficial. After all, how many politicians will push through military operations that planners object to if they will publicly be called out on it?
In the future, the generals in charge of the American military need to take a much more proactive role in the national security process. In other words, the military needs to take a larger part in the final say of how a military operation is planned, run and terminated. By giving the military its rightful role in this process, the United States can avoid some of the debacles that have occurred in Iraq.
Andrew Wagner (awagner@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 7:46am):
The longer they stay in Iraq, the longer oblivious flag-wavers can support them. If Bush really wanted to support the troops, he'd give them all Cadillacs and keep them in Iraq for life.
Cadillacs for the troops!
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 7:59am):
With the extension of tours in Iraq and the fact that our troops are already stressed out, I can see thousands more desertions in the near future. What will Bush do? What will WE do?
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 8:08am):
If we thought history looked badly upon Vietnam....
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 9:16am):
This is the inevitable end result of a massive slash in defense spending under Bill Clinton.
Anyone in academia old enough to remember the "peace dividend"? Well, this is it. Leftists couldn't wait to spend that Cold War military money on Bubbah's AmeriCorp and midnight basketball. Well, look at where that stupidity got us.
The only thing that can save us now is another massive military buildup, back to Gulf War levels, and to maintain it there through periods of peace. We either find the political will to keep the military at the necessary size or we'll have to find the political will to "stay the course" in conflicts all over the world for which we are woefully underfunded and understaffed.
If we're going to do this, do it right. Otherwise, just surrender to the barbarians now. As it is, Commodus Clinton has depleted the empire's legions, and we all know what happened to the Roman Empire after that.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 10:39am):
9:16am, shut up! Clinton had nothing to do with this. And no, a buildup in the Gulf will only make matters worse. Sorry, but we don't support your dream of global domination.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 11:55am):
"This is the inevitable end result of a massive slash in defense spending under Bill Clinton."
Wow. Did you come up with that all on your own, or did you have some help from Fox News?
I know you'll never be convinced otherwise, but Bill Clinton is not responsible for stupid decisions made by George Bush.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 12:19pm):
"Otherwise, just surrender to the barbarians now."
It'd almost be worth it to see the liberals squeal and whine when Sharia law criminalizes all there favorite ideas - i.e., death penalty type criminalize for sodomy, apostasy and blasphemy. Maybe the way you could treat women would offset that for certain of the male liberals?
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 12:42pm):
If you thought a lot people were murdered when the USA surrendered and retreated from SE Asia...
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 1:14pm):
10:39am Shutup? Why? Because Clinton didn't sign the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives, by unanimous consent in the Senate and Bubbah signed it into law on October 31, 1998.
The law stated, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
To that end, Bill Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox on December 16, 1998, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.
Thus, it was Bubbah (not Bush) who committed America to removing Saddam-- after hollowing out our military with midnight basketball, etc., ad nauseum.
Don't remain ignorant your entire life.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 1:51pm):
11:55 Sorry, but Bubbah signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 w/o any help from Fox News.
I know you'll never be convinced otherwise, but Bubbah is responsible for hollowing out our military to finance his "peace dividend" of midnite basketball, etc. ad nauseum.
Don't remain ignorant your entire life.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 2:39pm):
Didn't the military reduction begin under Bush Sr? I must be reading different history books.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php
It seems that Bush started the cuts and Clinton continued them. Even Rumsfeld insisted on a smaller, faster-moving military (Chuck Norris-style).
Just because Clinton had sex with your mom, doesn't mean you need to blame him for everything bad in the world.
Anonymous (April 13, 2007 @ 3:31pm):
First of all, I have been opposed to the futile "surge" since I first heard about it. But what I'd really like to do is just get a number of crucial facts clear here, to get to what I believe is the heart of the matter.
Bush, Cheney and their ilk are to blame. They are to blame for lying to gullible Americans, a distinct minority of whom believed their lies to the extent that they supported the unwarranted, illegal and unjustifiable 2003 invasion. The neocons are at fault for continuing this illegal occupation against the clearly stated wishes of the majority of Americans, and they are responsible (along with their supporters) for killing as many as 655,000 Iraqis. Quite understandable that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the US military OUT NOW.
The militaristic, maybe even nihilistic policies implemented by the megalomaniacs and greed addicts in the Pentagon, White House and Congress can rightly be blamed, not only for leveling parts of Fallujah in 2004, but for the atrocities of Abu Ghraib, and for the killings of Iraqi motorists who "got too close," or "looked at them the wrong way," or whose bookbags "appeared to them to be explosive vests," etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's their country, period. the US has no right to be there.
Furthermore, America needs to get the hell out now before these lunatics in Washington bankrupt the whole treasury. The war has already cost between half a trillion and a trillion dollars. Any halfway educated person who thinks about it clearly can come to realize this is obviously unsustainable!
Perhaps most importantly, the unelected Bush Regime, and by extension the deluded minority of US citizens who first put these maniacs into office are to blame for the internecine strife and murder that has resulted in an average of at least 40 Iraqis a day being blown into red mist. There was never continuous sectarian war in Iraq on the colossal scale that has been witnessed daily since 2004, and the ongoing occupation only perpetuates the slaughter.
Finally of course, the neocons and republicans (plus the many dems who voted to authorize this insane, criminal war) are responsible for the death of over 3200 US soldiers, the maiming of tens of thousands more, and all the disgraceful treatment of the troops taking place at Walter Reed and elsewhere.
Sorry for holding back, but I did feel I had to set the record straight somewhat.
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 9:58am):
"hey are to blame for lying to gullible Americans, a distinct minority of whom believed their lies to the extent that they supported the unwarranted, illegal and unjustifiable 2003 invasion."
I guess the "gullible Americans" include all the Democratics who voted to go to war?
PS. It's not the USA who is blowing all those people up - it's Islamic fanatics.
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 11:58am):
9:58, who's "hey"?
It's "Democrats" not "Democratics"!
What the hell is it with college students nowadays that they can't spell?! Learn!
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 12:41pm):
11:58, you need to watch the news. Remember how the Democrats didn't appreciate Bush calling them the "Democrat party," rather than the democratic party?
9:58 is being derogative intentionally. I guess "liberal" is not quite as bad as it used to be, because the right is coming up with ridiculous new ways to make themselves feel better about 6 years of the most incompetent leadership.
George W. Bush, Republican. HAHA!!!
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 3:55pm):
Wow and this coming from someone who has exactly HOW MUCH MILITARY EXPERIENCE AGAIN.....????? Oh that's right he's computer science major. Stick to what you know bubba.
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 7:32pm):
ever think the reason that the civilian leadership of the military is incompetent in their leadership BECAUSE NONE OF THEM HAVE SERVED??? Because we DON'T HAVE A DRAFT now. Yet when one looks at the history of the Volunteer military it was NEVER TO BE USED FOR A PROTRACTED WAR MINUS THE DRAFT?? The draft was ALWAYS supposed to be reinstated if America found itself in a prolonged conflict. Why do you think 18 year olds still register for Selective Service if "we were never to have another draft" as the politicians of today have duped the STUPID ASSED Average American citizen into believing?? So don't put all the blame on this administration every administration since Ford is to blame for the sorry state of the military today.
Anonymous (April 15, 2007 @ 8:06am):
9:58: You don't get it? We're violating StarFleet's prime directive... bunches up Defeatocrats' StarTrek underoos and induces bedwetting spasms.
Communism works... they proved it on StarTrek!
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
