News & Politics - U.S. Military Report: Wars straining U.S. power

JW77 · 05-03-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

U.S. military report: Wars straining U.S. power
Future readiness may be hurt by events today, Myers says

NBC News and news services
Updated: 7:46 p.m. ET May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - After years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military is seriously limited today in its ability to fight in other major conflicts.

That's the sobering assessment from the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, who told Congress on Tuesday that the United States would ultimately win another war, but it would take longer and put U.S. forces at greater risk, because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained resources.

Myers expressed confidence that American forces would ultimately prevail in any future conflict.

“The timelines may have to be extended, we may have to use additional resources, but it doesn’t matter, because we will be successful in the end,” he said.

Forces may not be as fast, precise
But in his annual Risk Assessment Report to Congress, Myers warns that the stressed U.S. military forces may be unable to meet expectations for speed and precision — in fighting and winning another conflict — and that “may result in higher casualties” for both U.S. military and civilians.

“The problem is that so much or our force is tied down that we don’t have enough to do other wars right away,” said Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a think tank based in Arlington, Va.

One defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Myers predicted the risk would go down in a year or two.

The military’s reorganization toward Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of a lean, agile force should reduce any increased risks it faces, he said.

Dealing with what's left of ‘axis’
Among the most likely conflicts the Pentagon foresees in the near term are with North Korea and Iran, the two remaining members of President Bush’s “axis of evil.” The Bush administration accuses both of having ambitions to become nuclear powers; North Korea has already claimed it has nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military has timelines for defeating its potential adversaries, given enough soldiers, tanks, aircraft and warships to do the job. But with so many of those resources tied up fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, those timelines could slip, Myers said, according to the defense official.

That increases the risk for conflict in places like North Korea and Iran, if either country believes the United States is in no position to rapidly respond militarily.

Myers' report comes as a nine-member commission held its first meeting Tuesday to discuss the next round of U.S. military base closings. The Defense Department will release a list of facilities on the chopping block next week.

Ex-general's dire view
Barry McCaffrey, a retired U.S. Army general and an MSNBC analyst, was more dire in his assessment of the nation's military. “Our ground combat power, the Army and the Marine Corps, are at their limit," he said Tuesday. "We cannot sustain another operation."

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, agreed. “We can respond, but the response is gonna be conditional and this complicates our diplomacy and national security,” he said.

About 138,000 American troops are in Iraq, according to U.S. Central Command. Another 18,000 are in Afghanistan.

Military officials have given no estimate of when they will be able to significantly draw down the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some generals have suggested it could come next year if Iraqi security forces continue to improve in quality and grow in numbers.

NBC News' Jim Miklazsewski and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Not really all that surprising. We knew this would happen if we went into Iraq with very little help. Puts us in a bad spot though. Especially if the U.S. military can't switch to a better rapid response force in a reasonable amount of time.

- annuscka - · 05-04-2005, 05:28 AM

North Korea?! Please, please, for the safety of the world, hold it!
I'm scared to death of what might turn up if you threaten Pyong-Yang enough.

More on topic, the US doesn't have a compulsory military service, does it? I mean, not all men/women have to serve? That could technically solve the problem, at least on a longer period of time (if it was made compulsory, I mean). If it'd be popular, I have no idea of.

**TheAngel** · 05-05-2005, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by - annuscka -

North Korea?! Please, please, for the safety of the world, hold it!
I'm scared to death of what might turn up if you threaten Pyong-Yang enough.

More on topic, the US doesn't have a compulsory military service, does it? I mean, not all men/women have to serve? That could technically solve the problem, at least on a longer period of time (if it was made compulsory, I mean). If it'd be popular, I have no idea of.

No compulsory service but no one would agree to it. There was public outcry recently because where were rumors that the draft was going to be reinstated. It seems like everyone wants to live in this country but no one wants to fight for it. I always say that I support my country, not some figurehead and while I don't support a lot of the things that George Bush does, if he told me I had to fight, I'd do it. I wouldn't join the military by choice though, as I have academic interests. Also, with Congress cutting the military spending and in general screwing over the military, this is to be expected. A military force needs money to run, it needs new technology, new weapons, and we're not getting that right now.

mh67511 · 05-05-2005, 07:07 PM

Are they really cutting funding? I thought defense spending was #2 behind SS spending.

Compulsory service would not go over well in the States. Like you said, a while back there was talk of the draft. Actually it was a bill that would require everyone between 18 and 25 to perform 2 years of military or civil service. The idea was that if everyone (including the children of rich people) had to serve, Congress would be less likely to serve. It didn't explain how they would pay to house, feed, provide equipment for this new influx of people , or any details. Interestingly enough, it was sponsored by Democrats and I don't think anything ever came of it, or will. If they had to have forced service I'd rather they do this than the selectiveservice, that way everyone would share part of the burden.

While I certainly wouldn't choose to serve in the military, if it was required I'd do it. I wonder if there was a World War 3 if lots of people would join the army like they did during WW2? I doubt it; people seem a lot more selfish now, but you never know.

**TheAngel** · 05-05-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh67511

Are they really cutting funding? I thought defense spending was #2 behind SS spending.

Compulsory service would not go over well in the States. Like you said, a while back there was talk of the draft. Actually it was a bill that would require everyone between 18 and 25 to perform 2 years of military or civil service. The idea was that if everyone (including the children of rich people) had to serve, Congress would be less likely to serve. It didn't explain how they would pay to house, feed, provide equipment for this new influx of people , or any details. Interestingly enough, it was sponsored by Democrats and I don't think anything ever came of it, or will. If they had to have forced service I'd rather they do this than the selectiveservice, that way everyone would share part of the burden.

While I certainly wouldn't choose to serve in the military, if it was required I'd do it. I wonder if there was a World War 3 if lots of people would join the army like they did during WW2? I doubt it; people seem a lot more selfish now, but you never know.

Yeah, Congress cut funding. Let me try to find some support for that. Might be a while though, I'm out of town this weekend.

AlexEvans · 05-05-2005, 09:18 PM

The draft would have no military utility anyway. We need long-service people its worth investing the time and money in training.

Anyway, the only new thing about this situation is that it may be getting better in a couple years. The US military has since the post-Cold War reductions been too small for the feared two-war scenario, and Iraq and North Korea several times tried to make trouble while we were busy with the other one.

As far as "little help" the US got more help in Iraq than it did in Korea!

JW77 · 05-05-2005, 10:13 PM

Depends on what you're talking about. As far as nations that took part, yes, but not in terms of the number of troops deployed.

AlexEvans · 05-06-2005, 11:25 AM

I'm talking in terms of forces deployed, excluding American and Korean/Iraqi forces. American forces made up a significantly smaller proportion of non-Iraqi forces in Iraq than they did of non-Korean forces in Korea, although in both cases the US provided the vast majority of the forces.

Obviously in Korea, South Korea gave a lot more help than could Iraqi opposition groups during the major combat operations, although I still wish Rumsfeld had won the bureacratic battle with Powell and been allowed to take full advantage of what assistance was offered. In any case, Iraqi forces now (as of about a week ago, IIRC) outnumber American forces in-theatre.

JW77 · 05-07-2005, 10:15 PM

That may be true, but the deployment numbers for the US (from war to war) dropped like 75 percent or so. Allied numbers (not counting Iraqi of Korean forces of course) only dropped about 65 percent. And that does make a difference when you're looking at it based on percentages.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > U.S. Military Report: Wars straining U.S. power