NYT editorial, "The Army, After Iraq": Repairing the damage Bush has inflicted on our Army

[DeepModem Mom]

Editorial
The Army, After Iraq
Published: March 18, 2007

You do not have to look very hard these days to see the grave damage the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the Iraq conflict has inflicted on the United States Army. Consider the moral waivers for violent offenders, to meet recruitment targets. Or the rapid rotation of exhausted units back to the battlefield. Or the scandalous shortages of protective armor. Or the warnings from generals that there are not enough troops available to sustain increased force levels for more than a few months...Crucial lessons need to be absorbed from this unnecessary, horribly botched and now unwinnable war.

The first lesson is the continued importance of ground soldiers in a world that defense planners predicted would be all about stealth, Star Wars, satellites and Special Operations forces sent on short-term missions....Beyond Iraq, the Army needs to move out of permanent crisis mode — with almost every available division deployed, just returned or preparing to be shipped out. It needs a force large enough to be able to devote time and resources to develop skills it is now chronically short of, and is sure to need in the post-Iraq future: soldiers and translators fluent in Arabic and other languages; military teams able to work with local populations in civic reconstruction, health and education projects; sergeants and officers who can help friendly governments train their own armies to provide security without relying on large numbers of American troops....

***

As long as United States troops are in Iraq, meeting the recruiting quotas of an expanded force will be difficult. The multiple combat tours, the warehoused wounded, the deteriorating Iraqi security situation are a lot to overcome.

Once that is behind us, the Army can be increased substantially, and should be, so long as Congress can assure the country that it will never again delegate away its war powers as carelessly and recklessly as it did in 2002. And so long as the next president understands that the point of having a large Army is to strengthen American diplomacy, not to launch impulsive and unnecessary wars.

Simply legislating a bigger Army will not be enough. The administration and Congress need to offer a better deal — better training, better protective equipment and better family support — to the men and women the Army needs to recruit. And they need to offer soldiers a clear pledge: if the armed forces are asked to fight, it will be only as a last resort, after full and informed Congressional debate, and never just at the whim of a president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/opinion/nyregionopinions/18sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. now unwinable war

those are key words folks

Oh how far the NYT has gone

[Erika]

2. I heard a U.S. Marine today protesting the W's Iraqi war

He has served in Iraq. He said he enlisted in the belief the military would be utilized only for honorable purposes. He found out differently with W and has the guts to stand up and say no more.

[babylonsister]

3. Nom. We cannot repair the damage until we admit a humongous mistake

was made, and make strides to 'change the course'. :eyes:

How 'bout, we get while the gettin' is good?

[Mojorabbit]

4. I dont know if I agree that we need a bigger Army

I think what we have will be fine(post Iraq). I think if we in the future need to go to war it had better be for a good and big reason, one that would require a draft. In other words it would have to be for a very very pressing reason like WW2. I don't know if this makes sense. I just think if we have a huge army then someone is going to want to use it. I think I need to go to bed cause I cannot be clear in what I am trying to say.

[Bucky]

6. Naw, your point is well taken. The trouble is that after Bush we do need a bigger army

The number and caliber of threats to America around the world have increased radically in the last six years. We're going to have at least a couple of spin-off conflicts to deal with in the coming years. Problems like this don't just go away with the next election.

[Bucky]

5. The war will have a generational effect on recruitment. It will take a decade to get past Abu Ghraib

Bush gambled that the short term gains in Iraq would quickly offset the long term consequences. The only problem is, there never were any short term gains. And to be honest, that's not really the "only problem". Even if it was managed well, the war would be a disaster. This isn't only a competance problem, it's a total failure of vision.

[Peace Patriot]

7. What is this big military machine FOR, except unjust, unnecessary, aggressive war?

That is the question that should be asked. Not, how it has been "mismanaged" by the Bush Junta, but what is it for?

What do we need a bigger, better equipped, Mideastern language-speaking, civil reconstructing military FOR? Are we gong to bomb more cities into rubble? Baghdad, Beirut, what's next, that our MILITARY is going to have to "reconstruct"? A bigger military is a standing temptation to fascists. Our political system has proved incapable of stopping an unjust, unnecessary war by an out-of-control president. If we "build a better" army, it will only further tempt anyone who gains control of our imperial presidency to perpetrate more corporate resources wars and wars of domination. And if our system cannot stop such a heinous crime, then the next best thing is to deny the president this awful weapon--the US military--for aggressive purposes.

What we really should be discussing is cutting the military budget by 90%, down to a true defensive posture. THAT is the way to prevent wars of choice!

When was the last time that the US military actually DEFENDED us? They couldn't even defend our nation's capitol on 9/11! They couldn't even defend the Pentagon! What are we paying for? Wars of aggression! We may need DEFENSE in this uncertain and well-armed world--a world in which our CIA WMD counter-proliferation network was deliberately destroyed by the warmongers in the White House, with no little help from the NYT's own "Mata Hari" reporter--removing a critically important tool for keeping us and the rest of the world safer. As long as we have such illegitimate, unrepresentative leaders being propped up by the NYT and other corporate news monopolies and war profiteers--and no effort is made on disarmament--we will continue to need a defensive capability. But why have an offensive capability? We should never have permitted this out-of-control "military-industrial complex" to gain control of policy. They are now manufacturing wars to feed the hog. They are turning us into a militaristic state, against the will of the vast majority of Americans.

The NYT has a lot of nerve talking about "impulsive and unnecessary wars," while we are still suffering the "impulsive and unnecessary war" that they played such a critical role in promoting. And get this. They say, of "the multiple combat tours, the warehoused wounded, the deteriorating Iraqi security situation," that, "once that is behind us"...

...once that is behind us....

...ONCE THAT IS BEHIND US...

..."the Army can be increased substantially..."

Putting aside the $10 TRILLION deficit that these bastards have run up, by rampant war profiteering and corporate looting and the unconscionable greed of the super-rich, IRAQ IS NOT BEHIND US. Iraq is AHEAD of us. An endless occupation. An endless war, even now being escalated. And we know that the NeoCon plan is to strike Iran NEXT, and to ensconce the US military in a permanent occupation of the Middle East--to steal their oil, and to protect Israel from the consequences of its own fascist, militaristic polices.

A pox on the New York Times! What nerve! What bloody nerve!

[Blue_Tires]

9. well said n/t

[many a good man]

15. EXTREMELY well said

It will be our future. Whether it is done voluntarily or it is forced upon us, will be our choice.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. Recommended. Then there is the Dept. of Justice to rebuild,

and the State Dept., and the U.S.'s image around the world.....

[LynnTheDem]

10. "unnecessary, horribly botched and now unwinnable war"

Ya don't say.

[Benhurst]

11. With a year and nine months for Bush to continue removing from positions

of authority all those who disagree with his criminal policies, it will be extremely difficult to repair the damage he as inflicted on all branches of the armed services.

[genie_weenie]

12. We need a smaller Army and a larger National Guard.

Additionally, we must remove the ability of the Tyrant, er... I mean... Democratically elected President to call forth and send the NG overseas.

So, smaller Imperial Army
Less overseas bases
Larger National Guard
Less power in the hands of the Glorious Leader

[tblue37]

13. After Iraq, it will be hard to persuade many people to join the Army.

They won't trust the government not to misuse and abuse them the way BushCo has. Even if they join in peacetime, and even if they join the Guard or the Reserves, much less the active Army, they will realize that could get used the way they were in Iraq, so a lot of potential recruits will just ass on it.

[CGowen]

14. W still has the red button and STRATCOM nt