|
January 27, 2008
Stretch Them To The Breaking Point
Stretch them to the breaking point and then increase the pressure. Collapse will follow. In the early days of the siege of Richmond, Lee admitted that if Grant had been able to bring one or two more brigades to bear he would have been crushed as he had no reserves left. It appears that this is what Bush has done in Iraq according to the Weekly Standard. It appears that Bush made one of the most audacious moves in civilian control of the Military since Lincoln appointed Relentless Grant to lead the Union Armies. In September, Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired general Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and Pace. Keane insisted the "train and leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced. But now, with Bush favoring a strategy nearly identical to Keane's, he didn't object. "Rumsfeld was never a lose guy," a Bush adviser said. "He always wanted to win."The article goes into General Petraeus' call for more brigades. The initial plan called for a one or two brigade surge. Petraeus asked for 5 brigades and got them. On top of that Congress voted to increase the size of the military. The Democrat controlled Congress. Obviously it is never wise to come up short of divisions in wartime. It could adversely affect re-election prospects. Even of Democrats. H/T Instapundit Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.27.08 at 02:42 PM
Comments
aj, America always cuts its forces in peacetime beyond what is prudent. It is a recurring theme. In any case the Army is set to get 2 more divisions and the Marines a couple of brigades. M. Simon · January 30, 2008 09:43 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2008
December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Al Qaeda In Iraq
"McCain talking points" Bubba does Florida GOP? No lawyer left behind! Be a victim! Or else! Rhetorical question of the day The enemy of my enemy is my outreach A new first? a reinjiggerating peekaboo Stretch Them To The Breaking Point
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You would think that coming up a couple of divisions short would matter and get talked about, no? Strangely enough, the US was in that exact, same position in Afghanistan right after 9/11 as not only were two divisions not up to snuff, having fallen to their lowest readiness status by neglect from the President and Congress, but one of them is *custom made* for the Afghan environment and climate: 10th Mountain Division or 10MD. They could *not* be deployed as they were still undergoing refit, personnel changes and ensuring that the entire division was recovering due to 'peace keeping' stays in Bosnia that stretched out far too long and were repeated far too often. Almost all of Afghanistan is elevated terrain and most of the major fighting to dislodge groups takes place in mountainous terrain, which 10MD is perfectly suited to do.
Unless you actually spend time learning about Mountain Warfare, the actual meaning of 'showing up at the lowest readiness since Vietnam' doesn't get across the true scale of the problem. MW units (Alpini/Jaeger/etc.) undergo at least one full year of training for stamina at high altituted plus seasonal survival, so as to operate in such terrain winter or summer. Described as 'light infantry' they typically punch way above their weight class, with Canadian small MW forces able to hold off Panzer divisions in WWII and Yugoslav MW Partisans being able to joust with AlpenKorps and still tie up armored units in the Balkans during that conflict. On flat terrain that stamina makes these troops highly confident and those Canadian MW troops fought on flat terrain... likewise AlpenKorps were able to thwart at least on Soviet armored thrust during WWII, and the MW to MW conflict in northern Italy remains a classic small forces battle that large forces would have been slaughtered trying to perform.
But no one *talked* about that in 1999 or during 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and so far in this election season. That is part of the reason the 'light footprint' was *necessary* with one Army Division only recently reaching full readiness and 10MD getting split between Afghanistan and Iraq, there were no other ready troops to allow a 'rotation schedule' with a larger force. That force was paid for in the 1990's.
Perhaps we remember the 'peace dividend'? Forces cut to smaller size and readiness allowed to go to hell? When Sen. McCain wrote a book containing the grand idea that 1/3 of the armed forces should be 'unready to fight' at any given time? If those decisions had political ramifications this field of candidates would be highly altered as well as the composition of the Congressional elections that were about those individuals that allowed such things to happen on their watch.
Coming up a couple of divisions short?
BTDTGTTS.
We are damned lucky to have one of the highest re-enlistment rates *ever* to let us keep combat veterans who know their profession inside and out, so as to work well at defending the Nation. They show more faith in the Nation than we show gratitude towards them for doing such harsh work. But that requires that we, as a people, show gratitude to them for doing such hard work even, and especially, if you *disagree with the job itself*.