| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| War demands strain US military readiness |
| 2008-02-09 |
| A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis, The Associated Press has learned. Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond to another outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report. Oh well. I'll guess if one comes along we'll just have to nuke it. Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risk level — pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseas will help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered to Capitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it. The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace. On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed that the assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter. "The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant." He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home. "We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said. Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need to replace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war. On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there by President Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've got more stability there as an example." The annual review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy — which would include fighting the wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China. The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006. Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military is working to improve its warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels." Gates is expected to tell Congress that while the primary goal is to continue to increase the size of the military, it is also critical to step up efforts to work with other nations — as well as other U.S. agencies — to bolster fragile governments through economic development and other support. And it will reflect his drumbeat for the use of more "soft power" to defeat terrorism, which includes the greater use of civilians in areas such as political development, communications and training. Pentagon leaders argue that nontraditional conflicts — such as the insurgents and terrorists facing coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan — will be the main military battlefields for years to come. And defeating them, they say, will require more than military hardware — or "hard power." |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #10 The AF pulled about 200 fighter pilots out of Iraq and reassigned them to "fly" RPVs. The force is steadily shrinking and manned planes are being replaced by cheaper unmanned vehicles. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-02-09 22:16 |
| #9 From an Air Force point of view, there is a certain amount of truth here. The war was initially a relief for the AF. Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch meant that the AF had been flying combat in Iraq continuously since the end of the first Gulf War. The ability to actually blow away the bad guys was good. The problem is that the airplanes are pretty much worn out and there is NO money to refurbish them. Quite rightly, the Army and Marines get first call on the available funds, but the AF senior leadership is desperate to "recapitalize" (Air Staff speak for buy new airplanes) and there is no money. They submit budgets with reductions across the board to "free up" funds for "recapitalization" and Congress just takes the money rather than let them buy new airplanes with it. The F-15s are grounded because of metal fatigue. The KC-135s and F-16s aren't far behind them. The AF is on a going out of business curve. I wouldn't be surprised to see it merged with the Navy into some purple suit air force in the next administration. |
| Posted by: RWV 2008-02-09 22:12 |
| #8 Complete with unit rotation, which they haven't done for a long time. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-09 12:40 |
| #7 It's a juggling act, since the Army is also transitioning to the brigade combat team model from the WWII division as the unit of deployment. They may have deployed to theater as divisions, but they fought as Regimental Combat Teams. Which is what they are essentially getting back to. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-09 11:37 |
| #6 Yup, that's the challenge. And IIUC the Pentagon is trying to get at least this coming fiscal year's funding secured because it might get really bad the year after. And if the Clinton machine takes power again, you know they WILL sabotage ANY efforts to share data between military leaders and civilian authorities even after a major attack. O'bama will Pre-emptively surrender before such an attack is deemed necessary. BTW, I'm not kidding about concerns re: IEDs here in the US. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-09 10:50 |
| #5 lotp, those are intriguing and informative posts. Given the significant possibility of a Democratic administration, I hope there is also a study underway to determine how the military is going to get all of that done with chewing gum and baling wire. Assuming, of course, that the officer corps does not resign en masse. |
| Posted by: Matt 2008-02-09 10:41 |
| #4 From that pre-surge (12/06) interview: In this interview, Ryan talks at length about the decision to deploy elements of an institutional training division into a combat zone to pick up this training and advisory mission, and stresses the difficulty thereof especially given that “advisor skills are somewhat enigmatic to the institutional Department of Defense.” As Ryan notes, “When you say you need advisors, you either look to Special Forces or you put your hands in your pockets and start kicking stones, because there’s no definition of advisors and there’s no advisory training outside of SF.” Based on his own background in SF and past foreign internal defense work in both permissive and non-permissive environments, Ryan also expounds in great detail on what makes a good (and bad) advisor, explaining that it’s largely a “function of temperament and personality” and noting that these are not qualities the Army is presently equipped to “measure and track.” In addition, he discusses what he considers the lack of a plan to “reconstruct the security forces mechanisms and infrastructure within Iraq” and the inability of US-based “staff action processes” to keep up with theater requirements. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-09 10:23 |
| #3 BTW, COL Ryan's slides (2nd link in that comment above) pack a lot into a small space. This interview with him at Ft. Leavenworth is worth a read, too. He volunteered to come back on active duty status after 9/11. Really impressive guy whose opinions about asymmetric warfare are based on experience in depth. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-09 10:19 |
| #2 Some people do get it, I think, P2k. But they're looking out towards the next operations looming on the horizon. From where I sit I see a lot of behind the scenes efforts to enable military to work with our own and other civilian agencies, emergency responders etc. Sooner or later we are likely to be hit with a major attack here which will trigger waves of jihadi/leftists from the south and maybe the north to come over the borders. There's more than one leader* who's thinking about the possibility that our troops may well be doing counterIED patrols and responding to WMD attacks within our homeland. Or other non-force-on-force operations in places like friendly south American countries or oil/resource rich African states. It's a juggling act, since the Army is also transitioning to the brigade combat team model from the WWII division as the unit of deployment. That's being done in parallel with the surge in Iraq, Afghanistan heating up and our Spec Ops being heavily deployed. Oh, and along the way, some Spec Ops experts are trying to teach elements of the regular army how to do the advisor role effectively in places like Anbar province. And yes, in the meanwhile we are indeed using up / wearing out materiel and equipment, as always happens in war. *(Wells has been pushing to have us figure out ahead of time how to integrate C2ISR systems to make data sharing work across military & civilian agencies if need be.) |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-09 10:09 |
| #1 A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis ROTFLMAO. It's war asshats. I'm sure WWII prevented the US military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis too! This is not a test. Repeat, this is not a test. This is the real thing. This is exactly what Rummey was trying to root out of the bureaucracy. It's the same crap as attempting to reassign Petraeus. THIS IS THE WAR. The culture within the walls is still focusing on the 'next big one in Europe'. Someone needs to bitch slap the upper echelons real hard. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-09 09:22 |