Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Elsewhere
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, May 3, 2005 |
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs yesterday told Congress that our war in Iraq is putting a strain on U.S. ability to fight elsewhere, should the need arise.
Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts (NYT | RSS)
The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon’s ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military’s highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday. The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A half dozen Pentagon civilian and military officials were discussing the outlines of the report on Monday as it was being officially delivered to Congress; one government official provided a copy to The New York Times. The officials who discussed the assessment demanded anonymity because it is a classified document. General Myers cited reduced stockpiles of precision weapons, which were depleted during the invasion of Iraq, and the stress on reserve units, which fulfill the bulk of combat support duties in Iraq, as among the factors that would limit the Pentagon’s ability to prevail as quickly as war planners once predicted in other potential conflicts. The report this year acknowledges that the nation’s armed forces are operating under a higher level of risk than cited in the report last year, said Pentagon and military officials who have read both documents.
Despite the limitations, General Myers was unwavering in his assessment that American forces would win any major combat operation. The armed forces, he concluded, are “fully capable” of meeting all Washington’s military objectives.
The general’s report appears to provide a slightly different assessment than President Bush offered at a news conference last week when he said the number of American troops in Iraq would not limit Washington military options elsewhere.
Well, no. Myers was stating a truism, similar to a mother’s admonishment that “I’ve only got two hands” when being rushed to do something.
The war in Iraq has a substantial part of our deployable force occupied, has expended a lot of supplies, accelerated the need for repair for various high ticket items, and fatigued our troops. Wars do that. Even relatively minor operations such as our intervention in Kosovo did this, virtually exhausting our supply of certain missiles.
Our military capacity is not unlimited, despite our enormous annual expenditures. Still, it’s difficult to conceive of a scenario that would contradict Bush’s statement. If action is needed in North Korea or Iran or anywhere we could reasonably envision conflict, we’ll take it. Now, if numerous such crises broke out simultaneously, we would be in great difficulty. But that would be true with or without Iraq. Of course, if that sort of situation emerged, our troops could be mobilized from Iraq.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Nathalie Blanchard Facebook Smile Leaves Her Depressed
- Glenn Beck, Community Organizer
- OTB Latenight – Cherry Poppin’ Daddies
- Hacked Climate Scientists Emails Reveal Truth
- Obama, the Recession, and Polls
- Giuliani Running for Senate, Not Governor
- OTB Latenight – The Jesus & Mary Chain
- Fox Fake Crowd Videos
- Congress to Investigate Fake Districts
- Douthat Blogging Again
If that were to happen, the "International Community" would come rushing to our aid, because of all the money and lives we have expended securing the world.... Yeah right.
LJD: Yea, I'm sure they'll be even more incented with Bolton whipping up support.
You guys hate the UN and bitch slap everyone on the planet (witness what's happening to Italy, or ally) and then you bitch slap them for reacting like any one would when treated in such a way.
Complain, complain complain.
I don't know who "us guys" are. Every left wing-nut wants the U.S. to run to the aid of the "oppressed" at taxpayer expense, then cry "imperialism" and "atrocities" when we do it.
The truth of the matter is, no matter how much good we do in the world, how much money and lives we "donate", most countries don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. Interesting for you to bring up the U.N.- they're experts.
Who's "bitch-slapping" Italy? Their assessment of the Srgena incident is critical of us- and incorrect. They're still a good ally, unlike France. Or Germany. My comment was directed towards countries whose asses were saved (or handed to them) in WW2, who feel they owe nothing to the world. Even in a dire, survival of the human race type of confrontation, they cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
Comments are Closed
