 |
|
August
2, 2002 8:45 a.m.
Supersize
It
Do
we have enough troops to go into Iraq?
|
|
 n
important
article in the Washington Post describes deep divisions within
the administration on the conduct, and even the prospect, of an invasion
of Iraq. The civilian leadership at the Pentagon wants to topple Saddam
with a relatively small number of troops, relying heavily, as in Afghanistan,
on advanced military technology. The uniformed military wants a large
number of backup troops on hand as insurance in case the more limited
and innovative attack plans don't succeed.
|
|
Even counting what
the military is asking for in the way of insurance, total troop strength
for the proposed operation would still be far below the number of troops
deployed for the Gulf War. Yet even this relatively small number is considered
to be too large an invasion force by the civilians at the Pentagon. In
fact, the unspoken implication of the report in the Post is that
neither side in the debate thinks that we can invade Iraq if the troop
requirements reach the high-end estimates of two, or two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand.
Why is that? Why
would a force substantially smaller than we deployed during the Gulf War
be considered prohibitive by both sides in this debate? Doesn't this simply
confirm earlier
reports that our radically downsized military is already stretched
to the limit? Don't the very terms of this debate reveal that our greatly
reduced military forces have narrowed the president's options to the point
where the invasion of Iraq itself may actually be called off? And why
is no one even raising the issue of the need for more troops?
As I argued in "Our
Readiness Problem," the reason is political. A draft would divide
the country and drive the Republicans from power. But even increasing
the size of the all-volunteer army makes for deep political problems.
For one thing, simply admitting that we have too few troops raises the
specter of a draft. That is politically unacceptable. But even paying
for a much larger all-volunteer force is a political nightmare. Especially
with the expanded pay and benefit packages that the military now gets,
a significantly larger all-volunteer force would break the budget.
If the president
chose to pay for an expanded military by radically scaling back domestic
spending, he would come under attack for betraying his "compassionate
conservatism." The president's political success is premised on his
having alternative, if less expensive, proposals for domestic spending.
So further radical cuts in the domestic budget would put him in serious
political danger.
Repealing the tax
cut in order to pay for an expanded military is also politically prohibitive.
Republicans would never stand for it, and the president would be subjected
to the fate of his father, who went back on his "Read my lips, no
new taxes," pledge.
And all this assumes
that a massive infusion of money would be enough to build up our forces.
But what if the prospect of real war makes it tough to raise volunteers?
That brings us back to the prospect of a draft.
So the war has put
the president in a political trap. Although the need to invade Iraq, the
need to remain there for some substantial time afterwards in order to
insure the transition to a stable government, and the danger that an invasion
might provoke new troubles in other parts of the world, would all seem
to call for a build-back of our radically downsized military, the political
dangers of admitting all this are tremendous. A draft means political
death. But paying for an all-volunteer force either breaks the budget,
guts domestic programs, or repeals the tax cut. And after all that, it
might not even work.
The result is that
the civilian hawks at the Pentagon have placed their bets on technology,
hoping that this will obviate the need for large-scale troop commitments.
They might be right, but the military's reluctance to risk a small invasion
force without a substantial number of back-up troops present if something
goes wrong seems more than justified.
So the upshot is
that the most important issue facing the country is not being honestly
debated. Our radically downsized military continues to inhibit the president's
options in Iraq, and may even end up forcing him to give up plans for
an invasion altogether. Yet the country is unwilling and unable to face
the truth about the need for an expanded military in a wartime environment.
—
Stanley
Kurtz is a research fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University.
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
