[Shadow_Group] Strain begins to show as Iraq stretches military thin

[shadowgroup-l at lists.resist.ca]

Strain begins to show as Iraq stretches military thin
Fri Dec 10,11:49 AM ET
 
FROM:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20041210/cm_usatoday/strainbeginstoshowasiraqstretchesmilitarythin<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20041210/cm_usatoday/strainbeginstoshowasiraqstretchesmilitarythin>
David Qualls is an Arkansas truck driver and Army
veteran who decided last year to get back into the
service on a part-time basis. Qualls took the National
Guard up on its appealing short-term recruitment
offer, called "Try One." He would serve one year in
the Arkansas Guard with supposedly no further
commitment unless he wanted to continue.

Almost 18 months later, Qualls, 35, is still in the
Guard, with no end in sight. He's been ordered back to
Iraq this weekend for a second tour. On Monday, Qualls
and seven other soldiers sued the Army in federal
court for its policy known as "stop-loss," which keeps
personnel in their units even though their terms of
enlistment have run out.

Growing resistance to reserve call-ups and extended
enlistments is exposing how unprepared military
planners were for the challenges in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Globally, fighting forces are spread
painfully thin, severely limiting options if another
crisis should arise. And, not surprisingly,
recruitment is lagging, particularly in the Guard.
That fact raises the specter of mounting shortages.

Since stop-loss orders went out last winter and
reserve call-ups intensified this year, other lawsuits
have been filed. Many plaintiffs, including Qualls'
seven colleagues, are identified only as "John Doe"
because they fear retaliation for challenging the
Army.

Wednesday, in a rare and brave public display of
grievances, soldiers in Kuwait used what was supposed
to be a morale-boosting visit by Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld to challenge him on the stop-loss
policy - and on a shortage of armored vehicles in
Iraq.

They were asking the right man. Since toppling Saddam
Hussein with a smaller force than many thought
necessary, Rumsfeld and President Bush have repeatedly
underestimated the strength of the Iraqi insurgency
and the need for troops to suppress it. 

The U.S. force is now belatedly being boosted to
150,000 in an effort to make the country safe enough
to hold the scheduled Jan. 30 election. If there is to
be any hope of even a modestly successful conclusion
to Bush's Iraqi enterprise, the military has little
choice but to do whatever it takes to come up with the
needed numbers.

The fine print in recruitment contracts, and a
presidential emergency order issued in 2001, bolster
the government's legal position with recalcitrant
soldiers such as Qualls. The courts historically have
not been sympathetic to lawsuits challenging military
authority in time of war. A judge refused Wednesday to
issue a restraining order to block Qualls' return to
Iraq.

But, as Rumsfeld heard firsthand, it all comes at
great expense: declining troop morale, soldiers
distracted by family stress and problems with
recruiting and retention.

If nothing else comes from the U.S. involvement in
Iraq, it has provided a stark lesson for the future.
The country has to be willing to pay for and commit
the forces necessary to achieve its foreign-policy
goals. If those goals require large and open-ended
troop commitments, the choices are few and
unappealing:


 Expand the size of the military, both the full-time
force and the Guard and reserves. But that is costly.
Personnel costs are already running more than $100
billion a year, up more than 35% since 2001 and
competing for funds with new high-tech defenses and
weaponry.


 Reorganize how the military is deployed, perhaps by
pulling more troops out of their Cold War emplacements
in Europe, Japan and Korea. But that is fraught with
potential diplomatic repercussions from allies in
Europe concerned about a return to U.S. isolationism
and friends in East Asia worried about a nuclear
threat from North Korea.

Not surprisingly, there is strong resistance to both
options, within the Pentagon and elsewhere. In which
case, the United States is going to have to be more
careful about being prepared for the fights it picks.
That's another, more important kind of stop-loss
policy



=====

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/attachments/20041213/406363a2/attachment.html>