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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in computer science and political science.