Dan Rather must be a glutton for punishment.
Not two week after Rathergate, his news department puts out another story based upon phony documents and sources with hidden agendas. This time he falls for the nonsense about the reinstatement of the draft (click for video):
“It's no secret: The all- volunteer U.S. Military, especially the Army, Marines and many reserve units, are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Rather in the opening of the segment. “So what about bringing back the draft?”
The story mentions the draft scare emails that have been circulating but never mentions that they’ve been debunked as hoaxes. CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger also uses Beverly Cocco for the centerpiece of the story. Cocco is a Philadelphia woman who says she is "sick to my stomach" that her two college age sons might be drafted.
SCHLESINGER (voiceover): But Beverly's not buying it. She's a Republican, but she's also a single issue voter.
(on-camera) Would you vote for a Democrat?
COCCO: Absolutely. I would vote for Howdie Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe.
SCHLESINGER (voiceover): In fact, there are at least three votes in this house riding on the draft: Beverly's and her sons,' Carmen [sic] and Nick.
(on-camera) Are you guys worried about being drafted?
NICK COCCO (College senior): Yeah. It's the talk. The talk's there. Though people aren't actually coming out and saying it, it's, it's there.
What Schlesinger fails to point out is that Mrs. Cocco isn’t just a concerned mom. She’s also the chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD). The group, though, doesn’t just take a stand against conscription. According to their “Resolution” they also “call for an end to the war in Iraq and an end to US wars of aggression.”
According to RatherBiased, the group's domain is registered to a man named Jacob Levich, a left-wing activist who in a 2001 essay compared the Bush Administration to the totalitarian government portrayed in George Orwell's 1984.
They also not that PAD lists Anita Dutt, a Green Party activist who is also a member of an anti-war group called Bronx Action for Justice and Peace. In a March 3, 2003 New York Times profile of the group reprinted on the organization's web site, Heidi Hynes, one of its leaders, said of her fellow members that "none of us are Republicans."
Not surprisingly, the CBS story also failed to point out that there are two bills in Congress that are seeking to reestablish the draft, both of which (S-89 and HR-163) are sponsored exclusively by Democrats. The Republican leadership has made it clear that the bills will never make it out of the Congress.
When the forgery story was being scrutinized, Dan Rather claimed, "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story.” He missed his chance on that one but he still has an opportunity to find who stole CBS News’ credibility. That’s a scoop just waiting for a veteran newsman like Rather.
1
I had to watch the video to believe this one. I kid you not, I was still worried it was some pastiche job until we got a ways into the story. Even for Rather, this was low. Good grief, is there anything like credibility left among the national news elites?
This is "reporting" people's feelings about a hypothetical state of affairs, while claiming it has relevance to a Republican/Democrat distinction. The clear and false inference called for (to those viewers who will feel they must assemble a coherent story out of this heavily-edited hack job) is that voting Democrat would prevent those fears from coming true, that we can be sure John Kerry won't institute a draft but *not* that George W. Bush won't. Which is absurd; Bush's own DoD people have made it abundantly clear that a conscript army is a *liability* under current conditions.
posted on 09.29.2004 12:07 AM2
Why not be as political as the Left in handling this issue? Bush needs to bring up in the debates that John Kerry's allies in Congress are trying to re-instate the draft, and that he as President will veto this legislation as soon as it hits his desk.
Only President Bush stands between the Democrats and mandatory conscription.
posted on 09.29.2004 8:53 AM3
Folks,
What this shows is that CBS is NOT making stupid mistakes, but is deliberately trying to throw the election.
Sell your CBS stock now.
There will be hell to pay after November – If W wins, as it looks likely, there will be retributions. If the Republicans retain control of Congress, there will be hearings and hearings, and hearings. CBS is sacrificing everything they have in a desperate attempt to slur W any way they can.
CBS clearly thinks they are exempt from any and all forms of accountability.
It’s time to Boycott CBS, their advertisers, and their affiliates.
SJ “Peter” Parker
www.airborne-ranger.com
C-2/75 75-79 8-76
West Covina, CA 91790
4
Today's journalists do not see themselves as reporters of news, but see it as their duty to shape public opinion. I don't see that there is anything inherently wrong with that, if it is disclosed. I think that part of the trouble here is that the MSM do not see themselves as advocates or as having any bias. In their view, everyone around them shares these views, so they must represent the center of opinion. To use Ann Coulter's example, asking the media to describe liberal bias like asking a fish to describe water: what water?
In Dan Rather's view the Republican administration is a collection of bad guys and he's darn well going to expose them. That's his job: investigative reporting turned advocacy.
My advice to Rather would be if you have the view that the president is the bad guy, so be it. Say it. Write a column about it. Whatever. Just don't pretend to be neutral on the question.
From my standpoint as a supporter of President Bush, I don't think it hurts us to have Dan Rather against us. With Dan's reputation now, I don't think people put too much stock in what he's saying. Evidence: the ratings plunge at CBS News.
posted on 09.29.2004 10:07 AM5
According to experts from across the Army, CIA, and State Department, it's possible that nothing BUT the draft may reverse the catastrophe in Iraq. They say the situation is far worse than the Bush White House has been admitting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58183-2004Sep28.html
Bush and Kerry are BOTH scoundrels for not telling Americans that a draft may be necessary, and that it should have been seriously considered after 9/11.
Meanwhile, USA Today reports on the Army that is supposedly so pro-war and pro-Bush: "Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20040928/1a_lede28_dom.art.htm
If the American public wishes to avoid a draft, then now would be the perfect time for Americans aged 18-25, who SUPPORT the war, to either enlist or join the reserves. The supporters of Bush war policy need to put their money where their mouth is.
Why is this nation waiting until AFTER the next major terrorist attack to take appropriate action to secure the Middle East -- and our own ports and cities?
posted on 09.29.2004 10:45 AM6
As in any war, the tragedies produced as a direct result of invading Iraq, in other words, the optional tragedies, are far too numerous to list and far too depressing to even try and recount. They cut across every scale, from the international loss of credibility our nation has suffered to the most personal heart break imaginable.
For anyone who has lost a loved one in this war no tragedy I can write about today could be greater. Children who will never know their fathers or mothers, parents who will never see their children again, there are no words to describe what they're going through. Many of these unfortunate individuals are and forever will be emotionally scared by their loss.
For those who have been disfigured, blinded, burned, suffered permanent head injury, confined to a wheelchair, or lost their businesses and homes, nothing tragic I can relate will be of significance. For all these victims, one of my very worst days would be one of their very best.
Like all wars, the most horrific tragedies produced by President Bush’s decision to invade the country of Iraq involve such a degree of human misery that most of us simply can’t dwell on it for long. It’s human nature to look away from horror. Better yet to never even know about it.
Thus by unspoken popular consent, most of the tragedy visited on Iraqi civilians from old women to new born infants will never be reported to American citizens or make it into our statistics. We will never know how many Iraqi toddlers have had their legs blown off or their guts ripped out for George Bush’s mistake. We’ll never know how many innocent civilians have been caught in friendly fire incidents, or knowingly targeted in the dead of night because they happened to live near an alleged insurgent stronghold and deemed an acceptable collateral loss. We’ll never know what went on in our spanking shiny new US approved and legally sanitized torture chambers in Iraq. But a tragedy unreported is a tragedy nonetheless.
One of the hardest to suppress and overpowering negative outcomes stemming from Iraq, and one which affects pretty much all of us, is the polarization this war has produced in our country. Before Iraq was a hot topic, people might disagree about the current policies of the Bush administration, but we weren’t at each others throats to the degree I see now. (If you doubt me on this observe the reaction this post produces on the Evangelical Outpost-assuming it doesn’t get censored).
In fact, in the aftermath of 9-11 we were all mostly in reasonable agreement on matters of national security and the debate that did exists was consider by most rational people to be a healthy sign of a robust democracy. In one fail swoop Iraq has changed all that. In the current divisive atmosphere created and now exploited by this Wild-West, gun-slinging WH, those past days of unity appear positively quaint.
Today the broad-band lines sizzle with the buzzwords of hatred and intolerance. Right wing Blogs feature vicious accusations mixed in with a heaping of disinformation and personal insults, while the comments section explodes with personal grudges and vile attacks on anyone who disagree with the Big Lie of the Day. Disinformation abounds, disturbingly kept in play too often by theistic individuals who, of all things, ironically profess to value truth and morality above all else. Had the World Wide Web been around in the 60’s, I bet Vietnam would have produced something like the conflicts we see today in the virtual communities.
In the real world outside of the Internet, families are ripped apart, neighbors aren’t speaking to one another, respect is lost among long time co-workers, relationships are torn asunder, marriages dissolve, people are even fired, and accusations of everything from stupidity to treason are routinely made between what was once the best of friends; all because of the decision to invade Iraq, the subsequent foul-ups, and most importantly the underhanded tactics of this WH to pit us against each other to extend their political power for another four years. The false premise of weapons of mass destruction and operational links to 9-11 are quietly de-emphasized and scads of over zealous web site owners revise history loudly proclaiming the War was a noble effort to liberate an oppressed people. The ghost of Stalin should be smiling.
This stands out in stark relief to the unity America enjoyed in the months following 9-11. My Lord, we’ve fallen so far from that single minded determination it makes tears come to my eyes. Unity lost when unity is needed the most. Our administrations policies in Iraq have split our nation in two; right down a painful emotional seam in a way the 9-11 murderers could only dream about. This tragedy is of national dimensions. This tragedy just never seems to end.
And through it all steady choruses of Bush loyalists lead the cheer and make the excuses. Everything is OK, giving the rich tax cuts after asking the populace to sacrifice in time of war is brilliant, invading Iraq was a good idea, WMD’s have been found, Iraq was in league with Osama bin Laden, we’re safer because of Iraq, the liberal press is exaggerating the situation … the sky is green and the grass is blue and ignore that man behind the curtain, ad nauseum.
What was seen as the marginal rightwing fanatical fringe a few years ago is now the norm. Facts are twisted, data distorted or dismissed as the neoconservative ideology skirts the outer edges of neo-fascism. War heroes are presented as liars, war criminals, or adulterers, a triple amputee veteran is accused of enabling Al Qaeda. Senior military officers are pressured to tow the party line lest they meet the fate of their honest predecessors.
Right here on this thread Dan Rather is said to have lost his credibility over an alleged mistake of documentation while in the comments section George Bush is glorified. His own credibility-on a much more disturbing document forgery-goes unchallenged, and threats of retribution are casually tossed out to anyone who dares question the honor of the man who led us to war on a false premise.
Mind boggling failure is portrayed as a reason to re-elect the same clowns who committed the greatest foreign policy blunder since Southeast Asia. Legions of the religious right hungrily lap up signs of biblical prophecy believing fervently in their heart of hearts that George Bush is an infallible Christian man who couldn’t possibly make a mistake-and was probably chosen by the Almighty himself.
What keeps me awake at night is the chilling near certainty that we haven’t seen the end of this; worse still, perhaps the greatest tragedy[s] of Iraq has yet to unfold. After all who could have foreseen that isolationism in the aftermath of WW1 would lead to WW2? Who could have predicted that enabling the Muhujadeen in Afghanistan fighting the USSR in the 1980’s would give rise to Al Qaeda and the Taliban? As horrible as this war has been, we may only be seeing the present tip of the future Iraqi ice berg. And currently the incompetent [mis]leaders who produced this horrid mess lead in our polls. Liberty weeps and dogma rejoices.
Consider what happens to our Al Qaeda enemies if we manage to keep order in Iraq and exit with some semblance of honor before what’s left of Iraq goes to hell in hand basket: Nothing. It’s business as usual for them.
But if we fail, if we get chased out or cut and run leaving Iraq a shambles we will be portrayed in the Islamic world as having been beaten. Al Qaeda recruiters will hawk their evil products and CD’s will be sold on the streets, from Cairo to Bangalore, featuring decapitations of Americans and trumpeting that the Great Satan was brought to it’s knees by the power of Jihad.
Or perhaps even more terrible-and something even I don’t want to believe- our neoconservative ideology will slip into full blown neo-fascism and the promise that was America, freedom, liberty, and justice for all, will quietly exit the stage and fade into history. I hope that latter vision turns out to be a paranoid nightmare-but I never would have believed we would come this far in such a short time.
That’s a tiny window on the very real national and potential future tragedy that is Iraq. It’s a continuing series of tragedies great and small already too great to bear and which shows no sign of letting up. The tragedy of Iraq reaches out to us all. It reaches into our lives everyday, it sucks down capital and resources, it lays people off, it pits us against each, it takes men and women away from their families and their homes, it breaks bodies and spills blood, and it promises to keep on handing out this horror for at least as long as the current junta is allowed to run the show; and then some.
posted on 09.29.2004 11:51 AM7
Methinks DS needs to learn brevity is the sole of wit.
posted on 09.29.2004 12:09 PM8
On the actual topic of media bias...
The freedom of the press was always regarded as a sacred trust. It used to be that the press felt it had to be counted on to report the facts accurately to the people. Now in the age of investigative journalism, they report "the truth" that the people "need to hear". See the difference?
posted on 09.29.2004 12:16 PM9
Joe, you would do your readers a great service if you could put a notice at the beginning of any post by DS or LL. I know it would save me from having to first scan to the end and then go back up to read the comments not entered by them.
I have been reading your comments section for months now and gave them a chance up until the last month or so. Neither ever added anything intelligent or enlightening to the discussion so now I just skip over them. DS' posts are a little easier to pass over because you can usually tell it is him by the length of the post. Any point that they might be close to making is eventually obscured by juvenile insults and/or foul language. I suspect I am not alone in ignoring these two.
posted on 09.29.2004 12:21 PM11
DS--There are not enough hours in the day to respond to your entire post, but be honest, you really don't care about all the "optional tragedies" that happen in the world. You only care about the ones you can blame on Bush and his "brain-washed" Christian supporters. If you really cared about all these "optional tragedies" you would at least acknowledge that as bad as it may be (I am not convinced things are all that bad) in Iraq now, it was much worse for the Iraqis under Saddam. The rape rooms, the mass graves, and the gassing of Kurds were all "optional tragedies" that Saddam inflicted on his own people, not to mention the looting of Kuwait. Setting aside the reasons for going to Iraq (we will never agree on them), at the very least the Iraqi people now have a chance (however small) to build a free country. It's not going to be easy, and no one every said it would, and it's not going to happen overnight, but the Iraqis have a chance to create a better life.
BTW--Why don't you stick to the topics you respond to and start your own blog for your anti-Bush and anti-Christian rants.
posted on 09.29.2004 12:36 PM13
Rob I'm really trying to stay off the thread. I plan on this being my last post. Don't tempt me. It was a think piece, I don't care if you agree or not.
posted on 09.29.2004 12:39 PM14
DS--For a think piece, it showed a remarkable lack of coherent thought. It probably would have been easier just to cut and paste from indymedia or moveon.org (or maybe CBS).
posted on 09.29.2004 12:58 PM15
And really, how about putting your "think pieces" on your own blog (their really cheap), that way you won't have to waste your time responding to all us "wide-eyed, fundie" critics.
posted on 09.29.2004 1:00 PM16
Rob settle down. I got a lot of complaints yesterday by posting too often and was accused of trolling. And I was posting a lot and I was bored out of my mind and trying to get anything giong to keep me awake.
So I figured if I was going to put up anything today it would be something I put some thought and effort into. And it would be something written form my 'soul' if you will.
I don't expect you to agree with that post, Criticize the heck out of it or ignore it.
But whether you like it or not, that post was written exclusively for EO (I'll probably post it somewhere else sooner or later). I fully expect criticism and so far the only one who has said anything nice about it is my wife. (Which she damn well better!)
I do have a Blog of sorts. It's actually more complex than that, it's what is called a comm, sort of a group Blog, and I'm lucky enough to be one of the guys that moderates it and manages it.
I'll be happy to discuss anything you wish in e-mail. You can e-mail me at Darksydothemoon AT remove AOL dot com.
posted on 09.29.2004 1:18 PM17
Rob writes
"be honest, you really don't care about all the "optional tragedies" that happen in the world. You only care about the ones you can blame on Bush and his "brain-washed" Christian supporters."
Rob, when you compare what we've done in Iraq with what Saddam did to his people, you miss a key point: our (DS's, yours, my) government didn't spend a hundred billion dollars, sink into deficit, and sacrifice 1000 of our soldiers to hurt Iraqis when Saddam was in power. Saddam did that more or less on his own (okay, so we kind of helped him in the 80s if you want to get technical).
What offends DS and me about the stupidly conceived and poorly planned invasion of Iraq is that it was done on our dollar, in our names.
Get it? Good. Now put that tired argument of yours back in the coffin where it's been resting for the past year and a half. Thanks.
posted on 09.29.2004 1:33 PM18
Believe me, LL, you and DS have both thoroughly documented that these actions were not taken in your name.
In fact, there's a CBS Special airing tonight:
"Iraq Invasion Against My Will, Says Lord"
posted on 09.29.2004 1:51 PM19
Actually Kevin I supported the war initially and I feel pretty bad about doing that. I can honestly say that I don't think Iraq would have popped into my head if it hadn't been brought up by others, but I should have been more careful, I should have been more skeptical.
Instead I let my emotions get the better of me. Two WTC was the coprporate HQ for the firm that made me scuccessful. I knew a few people who didn't get out. I was pissed and I was trigger happy and I was ready to see arab ass getting kicked.
Part of the blame for Iraq, no matter how small a part, lies with me for not being true to my nature and using the critical thining skills I chide others on this blog for not using.
posted on 09.29.2004 2:01 PM20
Methinks, DS, that the invasion probably would have happened anyway, irrespective of your feelings on the matter.
posted on 09.29.2004 2:18 PM21
Ah, Larry Lord rises from the grave to serve his dark master. Good to see you, really.
Yes, yes you've made it very clear that you don't support the war in Iraq, or anything else George Bush favors. I'm sure if President Bush came out in favor of root beer floats, you find a way to be against it, probably something about A&W and Breyers being subsidiaries of Haliburtion.
DS--I find it very hard to believe that you ever supported the War in Iraq. What I don't find hard to believe that once the going got a little tough, you were ready to bail. The DS/LL position seems to be we favor wars as long as they don't cost any money or get anybody killed. We want the world to be a better place, we just don't want to do any of the heavy lifting involved. You may now take your place among Neville Chamberlain and the other great appeasers, who prefer their tyrants strong and their free nations weak.
posted on 09.29.2004 2:31 PM22
Of course you're right Kevin. But I have to admit how it played out for me.
Rob it made sense to me at the time (And it still does) that if Iraq/Saddam had WMD's and ties to 9-11, or just high level operational connections to Al Qaeda, we had to whack them before they whacked us. The real clincher for me was the nuclear threat.
posted on 09.29.2004 3:00 PM23
"In fact, there's a CBS Special airing tonight:
Iraq Invasion Against My Will, Says Lord"
Hasn't CBS learned their lesson? I can't believe they'd rely on yet another dubious source for a story.
posted on 09.29.2004 3:24 PM24
Umm, wasn't the point of this thread about reinstating the draft? I feel like I'm talking to flat earthers when people insist that there really is some nefarious plot to get the draft going again. What makes anyone think the aspects of our modern military would make the intrduction of conscipts desirable or even possibe? Where are all of these soldiers going to be sent? There are only 10 active duty divisions. You can't just create divisions out of thin air without equipment, and officers and NCO's to lead them. How will all of these new draftees be trained?
Name on senior member of the military who has even mentioned the draft as a good idea? Truthfully, the problem as I see it is that the sytem of using Guard and Reserve units is in dire need of reform. The draft isn't the answer, but maybe two or three fully funded active duty divisions would be a better solution.
25
DS-"Before Iraq was a hot topic, people might disagree about the current policies of the Bush administration, but we weren’t at each others throats to the degree I see now. (If you doubt me on this observe the reaction this post produces on the Evangelical Outpost-assuming it doesn’t get censored)."
Well, you weren't censored, and reading over the posts commenting on yours doesn't provide any examples of people at your throat. Looks like you are wrong again. Nothing new there.
You really do need to edit your stuff for length and try to stay on topic. It's rude for you to try to make the rest us wade through your lengthy off topic odes to your own massive ego.
posted on 09.29.2004 7:55 PM26
Admit it Joe, Lord Larry and DS aren't real people. You write all that crazy stuff and then post it as either LL or DS. You do it to provoke everyone into some kind of a discussion. I don't believe anyone could be such an ass in real life - those guys have got to be fictitious.
-DJ
27
Oh... Larry, DS, and Kevin T. Keith... DONATIONS TO BUSH ARE NOW AT $350. PlUS ANOTHER $40 FOR DS and KTK. TOTAL: $390. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! BUSH LOVES YA!
posted on 09.29.2004 10:43 PM28
Well, you weren't censored, and reading over the posts commenting on yours doesn't provide any examples of people at your throat. Looks like you are wrong again. Nothing new there.
Dave S, Yes I was wrong on that prediction. I'm happy to be wrong on such predictions and would happily be wrong for the rest of eternity in those circumstances. You went a bit far with the last two sentences though.
You really do need to edit your stuff for length and try to stay on topic. It's rude for you to try to make the rest us wade through your lengthy off topic odes to your own massive ego.
It's always best to speak for yourself. "The rest of us" includes the whole board and some of them seemed to like it. If you don't like my posts, then don't read them.
posted on 09.29.2004 10:43 PM29
Well I guess I spoke to soon Dave S. Sep has come to the rescue and is 'at my throat'.
posted on 09.29.2004 10:44 PM30
DS- "You went a bit far with the last two sentences though."
You, the master of hyperbole and the sweeping generalization say that I went too far? That's rich.
posted on 09.30.2004 9:25 AM31
I find DS's messages thoughtful, respectful, and well-reasoned. DS represents what OUGHT to be the spirit of the evangelical movement, but sadly is not.
Instead of addressing DS's arguments, some folks here simply insult the person behind the arguments. That suggests to me a lack of integrity. Septeus, in particular, resorts entirely to strawman arguments.
BTW, I accidentally left my name off the post above, about both parties needing to seriously discuss the draft, and about the sky-high reservist desertion rate. Brian Finlayson seems to have better ideas for fixing the grossly understaffed occupation. I would appreciate further elaboration on Brian's part.
posted on 09.30.2004 10:05 AM32
A good 9/29 Newhouse News Service article:
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/pols29e_20040929.htm
"Under Bush, the Army is quietly working to add 30,000 soldiers to its active-duty force of half a million. Kerry has proposed adding 40,000 troops. That's less than half what's needed, most experts agree: 100,000 new soldiers. And they are needed quickly. The cost could top $10 billion a year.
"'The U.S. military has been heroic and resilient -- but strategically, they are woefully inadequate for the threat we are facing,' said Eliot Cohen, director of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
"A study by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory group, has concluded that even with another 30,000 troops, the current force cannot meet 'our current and projected global stabilization commitments.'"
posted on 09.30.2004 10:17 AM33
Mike,
Well, I don't know if I have the answers. But I was on active duty for four years as an Army officer. during that time I did a six month tour in Hungary supporting Operation Joint Guard. There were quite a few reservists called up to support the Bosnia mission, and I saw the hardship it imposed on them.
The problem is that the Reserve component is still designed to fight the cold war. So much of the Army's combat support and combat service support units are Reserve component. That means units in the logisitcs, medical and communications branches are always getting called up anytime there is a deployment.
My solution would be to retool the National Guard to make it only for homeland security and civil functions like hurrican releif. This way people who wnated more stability in life, but still wanted to serve could do so as Guard members.
The active duty forces should be restructured so that there is the right mix of combat, combat support and combat service support units. Then the Reserves can also be reorganized to have a more balanced force structure. This would be more fair and would ensure some of the support units in the reserves do not get called up an inordinate amount.
The bottom line is that two more fully funded divisions are absolutely necessary to maintain the current optempo of the US Army.
34
My solution would be to retool the National Guard to make it only for homeland security and civil functions like hurrican releif. This way people who wnated more stability in life, but still wanted to serve could do so as Guard members.
That makes sense to me Brian although I'm no expert on such matters. What are the practical issues in doing so and how realistic is the adoption of such change by the the decision makers?
posted on 09.30.2004 10:50 AM35
The problem is that the Army is moving away from the division as the deployment-sized echelon, and toward equipment-heavy mobile brigades. A heavy division takes too long to deploy, and has too much redundant firepower. A quick-reaction brigade still packs enough punch to do the job, but can do so in far less time and at far reduced expense, and be on station in a matter of days versus weeks.
That is the new transition in the armed forces.
Antiquated arguments for heavier or more divisions tend to come mostly from old-school officers, still smarting over the overwhelming successes enjoyed by our troops in Afghanistan, where just a few thousand mobile Special Forces personnel overthrew the Taliban regime. The generals empaneled to put together the strategy for Afghanistan told Bush that they would need, conservatively, 200,000 troops and nine full months to be combat ready.
Unacceptable, and anachronistic. A few guys, moving light, being able to call in air strikes, as as effective a force multiplier as the divisions of old.
posted on 09.30.2004 11:36 AM36
Kevin--Don't forget the precision guided munitions and UCAV's. Being able to knock out a target with one 2000lb JDAM vs a B-52 worth of "dumb bombs" or having a Predator loaded with a couple of Hellfire missles hovering above the battlefield is a hell of a force multiplier.
posted on 09.30.2004 11:48 AM37
Wow, I never realized I was an old-school officer! Having participated in some of the force 21 test programs while stationed at Ft. Lewis, WA, I saw first hand how the brigade combat team was to become the standard for combat operations. I stated that two more divisions were needed. I didn't specifically call for heavy divisions. In fact, it would probably be a better idea if those divisions were some new sort of composition that takes advantage of the new capabilities. I have been impressed with the Styker brigade's perfromance in Iraq. Something along the lines of that would be ideal.
To answer DS's question, I'm not really sure about the complexities of the Reserve Component and how it interfaces with the needs of the regular Army. I was only a junior officer in the active component. I think reforming the Guard would be a simpler task since it is basically a militia rasied by the individual states.
38
Thanks for your insights, Brian.
I agree the quality of drafted forces would suck. Yet while Rumsfeld's reforms can clearly win initial wars, they do not keep the subsequent peace very well -- losing ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps you (or anyone) could help me out with something: I still don't understand where the additional two divisions would come from -- higher salaries to increase enlistment? Reassignment of personnel from back-office/support positions?
posted on 10.01.2004 1:45 AM39
(mostly @Mike A.) -- I'm not military like these guys, but I do read some smart people's articles. I *believe* that, aside from some actual attempts to recruit more, most of the manpower will be gained by reassigning personnel from units now mainly set up as "support units" into functioning combat units. Also, don't forget that we are reducing our force presence in Germany and elsewhere--those are boots to serve other purposes.
However, I *do* agree that the combat structure these guys are describing does have certain weaknesses in occupation situations. I *think* the key there will be to revise our combat doctrine, taking into account the impact that fast news cycles have on political decision-making, for one thing. We'll have to completely destroy combat units before they can disperse, and--I think--also not make mistakes like letting the Iraqi army dissolve into the woodwork.
Let's not forget that a large part of the Iraq "troop shortage" isn't a lack of available forces, but really the fact that Turkey's decision to refuse us the right to march troops in through Northern Iraq initially meant that we weren't able to deploy our troops as effectively as originally planned. A lot of the surviving Iraqi resistance in the "Sunni Triangle" is there largely because we couldn't hit them from two sides, but had to race to hit them from one much harder--they were able to fall back and then dissolve, making our occupation job harder.
No one should be saying there were no mistakes, or even no serious mistakes, made in Iraq. However, given the military and political realities, I think the Bush Administration and his general staff did pretty darn well--and a sight better than I can see either a Gore or a Kerry Administration doing.
And I think the draft is *very* unlikely, given that no one but no one supports it, the military dislikes it, and the *only* people proposing it did so as a rather silly form of political protest. If you care to find them, there are links both here and on my blog to some of the many sources for these things.
Cheers,
PGE