Yesterday President Bush announced some troop reductions for Iraq during a speech at the National Defense University. He touted the success of the "surge" and decrease in violence. Yet, the facts are such that even after these announced reductions, the troop strength is still above the "pre-surge" level. The bulk of these reductions will come in February 2009, conveniently after the next president takes office.
I continue to be baffled about this for several reasons: First the Iraqi government has expressed their support for troop reductions and a time frame for withdrawal by 2011; Secondly, the US can not continue to spend $10 Billion per month especially when our economy is in shambles and our infrastructure is crumbling at home; Thirdly, most observers who tout about the success of the "surge" and decrease in violence are the same ones who now oppose further troop withdrawals. Finally, to the extent that we need to put more troops into Afghanistan, we cannot because the Army and Marines have been stretched to the breaking point.
This brings me to the main point: We are on defense and not offense, contrary to what Bush would like us to believe.Even when speaking to the Republican convention in an 11 minute satellite broadcast from the White House, Mr. Bush again articulated what he calls the central lesson from 9/11: We must stay on offense and take the fight to the enemy before he can strike us. This same idea is also expressed in the mantra that we need to fight them over there rather than fight them here. But the fact is that we are on the strategic DEFENSE and not offense. How is this the case when we still have over 150,000 troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention another 100,000 contractors as well as significant numbers of our Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy station as support in places like Kuwait, Bahrain, and the Persian Gulf?
The answer is simple: We are on the strategic defense precisely because all those troops are mired in the Middle East. We have lost the global initative and our freedom of action. The enemy can hit us at the time and place of his choosing and we can only hope that we can respond. We have lost our ability to effectively respond to any global crisis unless it just happened to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even there we need to resort to bombing just to hold our own. So by definition, we are on the strategic defense.
There could be no better example than the recent trouble in Georgia when all we could really do is make bellicose statements against Russia and send Condi and the VP for a highly visible yet unproductive road shows. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff laments not having a sufficient reserve to put additional troops into Afghanistan as requested by the field commander. If we can't even reinforce our troops there with more than with simply a Marine battalion, then we are on defense. No amount of happy talk can change the facts that our ground forces are at their limit, their equipment is worn out, and our treasury is empty. Thus we are limited in our ability to go on offense if we need to around the world. If we are having trouble going on offense, then by definition we must be on defense. This situation is obvious to our friends and foes alike. It is also a contributing factor to embolden regimes in North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and yes even Russia. Instead of delivering a speech at the National Defense University, Mr. Bush might want to sit in on a few of the classes.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment