Boot and Hanson, Round Three: Just Enough to Stave Off Defeat
- 01.31.2007 - 4:50 PMDear Victor,
There is a sense of urgency within the armed forces—especially within the Army and the Marine Corps—but it’s hard to see it in the rest of the country or in Washington. Even the Pentagon seems to be, in many respects, on a peacetime footing.
While our soldiers and marines are fighting and dying in Iraq, it’s rather amazing to see that repair depots needed to fix badly damaged vehicles are still not operating on a 24/7 schedule, that armored vehicles (such as the Cougar, designed to deflect bomb blasts) are only now being ordered in substantial numbers, that promotion remains as slow as ever even for many of those soldiers who have proven their merit in combat, and that vital pieces of gear (ranging from PDA’s to identify insurgents to laser deflectors to warn civilian motorists in front of checkpoints) are still MIA. Not to mention the difficulties of setting up new Provincial Reconstruction Teams because of insufficient resources and undercommitment at the State Department and other civilian agencies.
Only a handful of politicians—notably President Bush and Senators McCain and Lieberman—seems to realize that we need to exert ourselves to the utmost to avoid a catastrophic defeat. Yet even Bush’s last-ditch effort—sending 21,000 more troops—bespeaks a lack of complete commitment.
If we’re truly on the verge of disaster—and I think we are—is a force of 150,000 troops (most of them rear-echelon support personnel) the most that a country of 300 million people can muster? Why not mobilize the reserves and the National Guard and raise new units of volunteers as was done during the Spanish-American War?
Based on the traditional formula laid out in the new Army-Marine counterinsurgency manual of one counterinsurgent per 40-50 civilians, we need at least 260,000 troops and police to pacify Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle (population: around 12 million). We’re not even close, unless you put more stock than I do in the ability of Iraqi Security Forces to carry on the fight. (They have some good units, but, given their leave policies and other shortcomings, the number of effective soldiers at any one time is probably well under 50,000.) I realize that more troops do not necessarily guarantee more success (as Vietnam proved), but a sound counterinsurgency strategy is manpower-intensive. The Boer War and other successful counterinsurgencies have shown that victory is more likely if more troops are sent and employed intelligently.
My fear is that, even at this late date, all we’re willing to do is just enough to stave off defeat for the time being—not enough to win. I hope I’m wrong.
Cordially,
MB
Boot I • Hanson I • Boot II • Hanson II • Boot III • Hanson III • Boot IV • Hanson IV
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
February 1st, 2007 at 9:45 AM
“If we’re truly on the verge of disaster—and I think we are—is a force of 150,000 troops (most of them rear-echelon support personnel) the most that a country of 300 million people can muster? Why not mobilize the reserves and the National Guard and raise new units of volunteers as was done during the Spanish-American War?”
Isn’t the problem facing advocates of this view that public support for the Iraq War is at a historic low? Does not this fact make any public call for military volunteers most likely fall flat?
It seems the first and foremost issue is fixing the ”equipment problems” our troops now face. This topic was explored today be Rep. Neil Abercrombie on C-Span.
Addressing this issue seems 1) more possible given the political climate and 2) the most effective course of action in light of the Iraq surge.
Changing the mindset of the American public is possible at crisis moments, such as 9/11 or perhaps a future Middle East conflagration. But wasn’t this 9/11 moment squandered?
And isn’t the National Guard already being deployed, and failing to meet its commitments to their states?
And does not the training hurdle of any volunteers make this suggestion moot if we are talking about a six month window for success in Iraq?
I would be interested in your views in how, over the next 5-10 years, to augment our military capabilities and prepare programs for potential civilian mobilization in future military operations.
This observations aside, we both share a concern of America’s ability to tackle the challenges it now faces.