From ‘slow bleed’ to ‘death spiral’

I know I mentioned it recently, but the quote continues to be relevant. In 2000, then-Gov. Bush blamed Clinton and Gore directly for “hollowing out” the military. “If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, ‘Not ready for duty, sir.'”

Of course, if Bush wanted to make military preparedness a key element of his presidency, then his failures in this department are all the more dramatic. The president, of course, doesn’t see a problem — Bush told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto last summer, “We have a very strong military and we can deal with any threat to the homeland there is and will if we have to.”

Apparently, Bush is the only one who thinks so.

Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment that would be vital to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a “death spiral,” in which the ever more rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies now at hand.

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to potential foreign crises…. An immediate concern is that critical Army overseas equipment stocks for use in another conflict have been depleted by the recent troop increases in Iraq, they said.

“We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it,” Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Remember, Bush sought the presidency on a military-readiness platform and, for reasons that defy comprehension, believes we’re still well prepared.

Feel safer?

The Army’s vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard A. Cody, described as “stark” the level of readiness of Army units in the United States, which would be called on if another war breaks out. “The readiness continues to decline of our next-to-deploy forces,” Cody told the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness panel last week. “And those forces, by the way, are . . . also your strategic reserve.”

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked last month by a House panel whether he was comfortable with the preparedness of Army units in the United States. He stated simply: “No . . . I am not comfortable.”

Democratic and Republican lawmakers received classified briefings last week on combat brigades and their equipment. Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz (D-Texas), chairman of the committee’s readiness panel, said: “I have seen the classified-only readiness reports. And based on those reports, I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure, should our Army be called to deploy to an emerging threat.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), who attended the briefing, said, “We are at a crisis point across the board.” And Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), said, “This nation has got to replenish and fix what is soon going to be broken.”

The mind reels.

I’m sure there are plenty of troops we could send over there now that we are allowing disabled veterans to be sent. The same strategy could be used on the equipment, just send the broken vehicles out again, and voila, you have plenty of vehicles.

/snark

Seriously, why isn’t this more of an issue for the allegedly pro-defense Republican voters? Can’t they read the reports? Or are they only pretending to be in favor of a strong defense?

I am truly puzzled by this, the only answer I can think of is that they actually believe the bullshit about terrorists coming here to get us if we leave Iraq.

  • “Or are they only pretending to be in favor of a strong defense?”

    It seems those who talk about a strong defense usually mean more bucks for gee whiz gear that is absolutely useless in an counter insurgency fight. Rummy and crew thought that they could make war more efficient and “cost effective” with high tech gizmos and fewer boots on the ground. Doesn’t work that way and probably never will.

    War (especially a prolonged occupation) has never been an “efficient” nor “cost effective” way of doing things unless you’re a military supplier.

  • Racerx wrote: “I’m sure there are plenty of troops we could send over there now that we are allowing disabled veterans to be sent.”

    ‘300’ SPOILER ALERT: Now that I’ve seen ‘300’, I call it the ‘300 strategy’: picture Bush sitting around saying, “see, the only reason the Spartans lost is that they didn’t let that disabled guy get in the fight. Heh heh.”

    Racerx wrote: “the only answer I can think of is that they actually believe the bullshit about terrorists coming here to get us if we leave Iraq.”

    No doubt they actually think that the terrorists will cling to the landing gear of the departing U.S. transport planes…

  • The pathetic truth is- and always has been- that the politicos would rather see $200 million airplanes (because that brings money and jobs into their home districts) than a proper investment in actual troops and their equipment. I am constantly reminded of a statement from one General a couple of years ago that, for the cost of one F-22, the Army could pay for 89,000 troops and the best possible armor/weapons available (note: this doesn’t mean what we currently give them, it means 2 generations beyond what they have)…

    Sadly, until the politicos get off their horses and provide proper funding to the proper places (e.g. would the Air Force really miss a couple of F-22s?), Walter Reed et. al. will continue to be only the tip of a very large pyramid of failure.

  • The thing that makes me so upset about the bullshit about “terrorists coming here to get us if we leave Iraq” is that the people pushing this meme are the same ones who have NEVER, EVER been right about ANYTHING on this subject. And the media keeps giving them airtime.

    Why aren’t the viewers reminded of their predictive record every time they make a new prediction?

    As Atrios likes to say (for example) “why is Richard Perle on my TeeVee?”

    Hey Pumpinhead, hasn’t Perle been completely wrong often enough for you to retire him from your Rolodex labeled People to Suck Up To? Do you enjoy promoting the opinions of people who are never right? If that’s the case, you’re doing a heckuva job.

  • There is a reason war opponents have not been able to come up with a plan for “victory” — and that’s because the plan for failure began the minute Bush played into bin Laden’s hand by invading Iraq. To that point, bin Laden’s refuge was in the process of being destroyed, his network was being taken apart, it’s effectivness reduced and he was on the run. If we had, to borrow a phrase, stayed the course then, think of where we’d be in the real, though stupidly-named, war on terrorism.

    Instead, Bush created a new training ground for terrorists and even more incentive for those who merely disliked us to hate us. Worse, he engaged in a war that could not be won. Now we are stuck, not wanting to give bin Laden a victory, but unable to effect one ourselves. Bush has weakened us — and strengthened al Q in a way bin Laden never could have. If we think Bush has acted stupidly, imagine what bin Laden thinks.

    I believe there is a way out — a way to leave Iraq and keep bin Laden from the victory Bush so fears he’ll claim. It’s fairly simple and would allow him to save face here at home: begin the gradual withdrawal and repositioning that war opponents are calling for AND resume the real war on terrorism. I don’t want to hear that we quieted the Shia or the Sunnis for a week or two while we surged, I want to hear that last month we destroyed two terrorist training camps somewhere, shut down two major funding pipelines, and through international cooperation, foiled a terrorist plot.

  • And BushCo (TM) will say talking about our military’s FUBAR condition emboldens the terrists/disheartens the troops in 5…4…3…

    I know there is a tally of the number of people killed drinking/drug-related incidents every year. We need to add the US and Iraq people wiped out by the Drunken Draft Dodger to the list.

    In my tin-foil hat moments I wonder if BushCo (TM) wants a weakend military so there is no one available to hunt down/shoot their arses once they scamper to Dubai.

  • “I’m sure there are plenty of troops we could send over there now that we are allowing disabled veterans to be sent.”
    don’t forget the felons!

  • gg – nice Bush imitation. You rival Jon Stewart. The only thing better is your live Cheney impression. Then again, I might be biased.

    If only Bush had the balls and brains if Leonidas…sigh.

  • Gen. Peter Pace … stated simply: “No . . . I am not comfortable.”

    Is he comfortable with anything or anybody other than his presumably faithful and heterosexual wife Lynne?

  • Apologies to pumpkinhead. C&L points out that he actually reminded the viewers how little credibility the neocons have:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/18/murtha-why-would-i-believe-cheney/

    MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans will say that those who supported the war are saying, “Trust us, see this through,” the same people who said, “There are weapons of mass destruction. General Shinseki’s wrong, we don’t need hundreds of thousands of troops. We will be greeted as liberators.”

    SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.

    MR. RUSSERT: “The cost of the war,” according to Lawrence Lindsey, “won’t be more than $200 billion.” “There won’t be any sectarian violence.” All those judgments were wrong. Why should the American people continue to belive in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up and executing the war?

    Indeed. More of that, please!

    But I would add a question for Russert: “Why would these people continue to be invited to make new predictions on TV when they don’t even admit how wrong they were? Can’t you find anyone who was right and ask them what’s likely to happen?

    the money quote from Jack Murtha:

    “…everything I predicted turned out to be true. Nothing they predicted turned out to be true. Why would I believe there’s going to be chaos in the Middle East just because they say it?

  • The sister wrote:

    “nice Bush imitation. You rival Jon Stewart. The only thing better is your live Cheney impression. Then again, I might be biased.”

    Well, yes, you are biased :), but it is also sadly true that I could probably travel anywhere in the world, adopt a shit-eating grin, go ‘heh heh’, and people would know who I was imitating…

  • “Bush told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto last summer, “We have a very strong military and we can deal with any threat to the homeland there is and will if we have to.”

    Apparently, Bush is the only one who thinks so. – Mr. CB

    Not necessarily. Once you understand Shruby’s perspective, his confidence is understandable though where it comes from is deep in worst case scenario territory.

    Today’s Fresh Air was excellent and it dealt with a topic that touches on almost every scandal we have in front of us. Corporate Mercenaries and the privatization of the American military. The interview was about 45 minutes long but it clarifies much about the willingness of ShrubCo to commit this country to endless warfare and it is a dark, dark warning to anyone who thinks the behavior of the military in or out of this country is going to look anything like business as usual. ShrubCo wants the “traditional” military to sputter and fail which will enable the continued rise of an all purpose, (from ShrubCo’s perspective), privately OWNED military. And these corporate soldiers are far from just, “over there”.

    When Shruby says “we” have a strong military, he’s not lying for a change. But what he’s not saying is that the “we” isn’t America but he and his corporate buddies instead. And Carol Lam was getting close to finding out more about what….?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8992128

    Interviews
    Journalist Scahill

    Fresh Air from WHYY, March 19, 2007 · Blackwater USA is a secret army based in North Carolina with a sole owner: Erik Prince, a radical right-wing Christian multimillionaire. Jeremy Scahill talks about his book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

  • “We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it,” Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

    Yet when the Democrats have a bill that addresses the shortcomings the military is facing, they get accused of trying to “micro-manage” the war.

    Why does the Bush administration hate our troops?

  • Comments are closed.