Where's the beef? (Updated)

I've been working my way through a lot of the conservative/neo-con/right wing blogs as they celebrate Bush's victory and what it means for the "War on Terror" as of late. But I've noticed a troubling trend. Most seem convinced that this war will continue for some time - and that the U.S. response should be a mix of military, political, and economic actions. If military action is going to remain a "leg" in this new strategic triad, then why has the Bush Administration so adamantly refused to permanently expand our ground forces?

First, let's take a look at some of the rhetoric. From Austin Bay's strategy page:

The re-election of George W. Bush bodes well for peace in 2020. A John Kerry victory would have cost us an additional two years of blood, toil, sweat, and tears -—the two years it would take the Kerry Administration to discover that the Bush Administration’s strategy in the War on Terror is the right one.

However, the linked threat posed by theo-fascist terrorism, petty despots, and the proliferation of weapons of capable of killing innocents by the millions remains the Hell Forumla for the 21st century.

Like it or not, the bitter task of breaking our planet’s Hell Formula falls on the American people, led by American presidents a decade after Bush leaves office.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Modern Western man is faced with this awful dilemma, from which he recoils: real peace and successful reconstruction are in direct proportion to the degree that an enemy is humiliatingly defeated and so acknowledges it—the aim being that he will come to feel that he cannot go on being what he has been. To that end, absolute victory may encompass everything from Hiroshima to bombing downtown Belgrade as the price for tranquillity and a democratic and humane postbellum Japan and the Balkans. Not finishing off a defeated Republican Guard in 1991 or sparing looters in April 2003 or breaking off the siege of Fallujah in April 2004 only ensures that more corpses will pile up later. President Bush’s so-called Axis of Evil in 2002—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—all had in common unfinished business with the U.S. military that had led to a bellum interruptum of sorts. In contrast, the Grenada communists, Noriega, Milošević , and the Taliban were all defeated, and only after that were their societies rebuilt—and thus Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan now do not belong to the axis of anything. Perhaps for all the debate over how to fight irregular wars in an age of global terrorism, we would do best to recall the realistic, if inelegant, words of the owner of the Oakland Raiders, the infamous Al Davis: “Just win, baby.”

What are the folks in uniform saying? Black Five brings us this (hat tip to Murdoc):

2. Troop Strength - All believe that the Army needs more than 30-40,000 additional soldiers. And most believe the Marines should be significanlty plussed up in the MEUs (and all should be SOC). Troop strength increases will take time, but will be necessary for years.

Three think that a draft will be necessary if Iraq continues to need over 100,000 troops.

Five think that military action outside of Iraq and Afghanistan is imminent. Syria was considered the most likely candidate for an introduction into the capabilities of the US military...

One thought that the entire Reserve force would be mobilized in the near term.

3. Donald Rumsfeld should resign - Everyone likes Rummy. However, nine soldiers think that he should resign immediately after the elections in Iraq. The rest think June is more appropriate for Rummy to step down.

If a Commander in the field had the same kind of problems that SecDef had, he/she would have been removed. It's a responsibility issue, not a like/dislike issue. He should accept responsibility and step down. Most feel that it's not fair to have higher standards for Soldiers than for the Civilian leaders of the DOD.

Half thought that General Schoomaker should resign as Army Chief as well.

If this is truly the case, if the decision was made before entering Iraq that this was a long term project to spread democracy as a means of securing our own national interests, why did the Bush Administration wait for so long before even considering the idea of expanding our combat forces? It'd sure be nice if W. were to perform a little bit more maintenance on the family ride before turning the keys over to his replacement, come 2008. Fox News provided this insight back in August:

While the Army's transformation effort has earned praise from retired Lt. Gen. Theodore Stroup, Stroup says more troops are needed.

The Army is underfunded and overburdened compared to the other services, and needs a bigger slice of the defense budget.

"The other service departments are going to have to give up some percentage points because today you have a strategy/resources mismatch," Stroup said, adding, "I can say it because I am retired."

Stroup said the Army should be expanded by 40,000 to 50,000 men. He cautioned that this expansion should only take place if the money is available to avoid putting too much strain on the force and pulling money from elsewhere. He said the Army does not have enough soldiers to handle current missions, citing the inability to devote enough forces to Haiti as one example.

As I have (vigorously) argued over at TIA, I understand why the U.S. is in Iraq - regardless of whether there was an active WMD program. Of all our options available in dealing with Iraq, invading was probably the "least worst."

• Leave Saddam in place? Bad idea...especially when one of his nut case sons had replaced him.
  
• Foment a coup? Hm...what sort of ruthlessness that would have been required for such a coup to work? Who would we have been supporting to replace Saddam? When do you suppose HE would have held elections?
  
• Wait for Saddam to fall and civil war to sweep the country without a moderating force in place? I don't think you would have liked those consequences...neither would the Iraqis.
  
• Leave sanctions in place? They were simply causing common Iraqis to suffer while the Baathists solidified their grip on the country.
  
• And, of course, leaving Saddam in power would have meant a continued presence in Saudi Arabia - further exacerbating our problems with Islamists.

But if we KNEW war was the "least worst" choice for dealing with Saddam, why wasn't an effort made earlier to expand the army and marines? I don't get it. If it was a matter of money...well, it's costing a lot more NOW to freeze people in the military, re-equip National Guard and Reserve units, pass out sizeable retention bonuses, and build new units on the fly than it would have cost to plan for the expansion in 2002.

I argued against blaming Rumsfeld for the lack of armored vehicles in Iraq here. I also argued for replacing him because of larger issues. Unfortunately, I ALSO argued for carefully weighing an expansion of the army. Upon further review, I believe THAT argument was mistaken. From 20 December:

Let me be clear on where I stand. I think Rumsfeld needs to go. In my opinion, he has created too much tension between federal bureaucracies, pushed for too large a role in Iraq's post-invasion reconstruction, and accepted too easily the arguments of folks like Wolfowitz that occupation would be a piece of cake.

But those reasons are completely removed from what is now being introduced into the argument.

• We don't want a secretary of defense who hovers over invasion planners' shoulders, "deciding how to fight the war once it begins."

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to personally write the TO&E for tactical units based on the "guidance" of Spec-4s and reporters.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks massive, ruthless American occupation will do anything other than alienate the entire population, laying the groundwork for a longer - rather than shorter - occupation.

• We don't want a secretary who thinks we need to permanently add tens of thousands of troops to the military because we have high short-term troop requirements.

• We don't want a secretary who chooses to listen to the last generation of military leaders who refuse to budge from Cold War force structures.

• We DO want a secretary of defense who can stand and say, "We messed up. We need to improve that. We're looking into ways to do that better."

• We DO want a secretary who will continue to reshape the military to better fit today's threat environment.

• And we DO want to take every possible step to ensure Iraqi elections produce a legitimate enough government to rally common Iraqis to its cause.

Update:

2Slick had this well-written, well-thought out response to Black-Five's interview series. Me? I still think Rumsfeld needs to go. And I'm coming around to the idea that we need a larger standing army if we're going to more actively push for democracy abroad.

Update 2:

Andrew Olmsted asks a question similar to mine. Where is the push to 'up' the force?

Iraq
Military