The WaPo reports that U.S. President George W. Bush plans to expand the size of the army. Why, one might ask. Well, Bush II has – for the first time – said that the U.S. is not winning in Iraq. He believes that the U.S. military should be bigger to cope with the new situation in the world, and more specifically with the problems in Iraq.
As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. “We’re not winning, we’re not losing,” Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, “Absolutely, we’re winning.”
[“An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, ‘We’re not winning, we’re not losing,’ ” Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. “There’s been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with.”]
In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. “We need to reset our military,” said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.
But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed…
A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq… the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation’s permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.
In itself, expanding the U.S. military seems to be a wise thing to do: if not just for Iraq, then for possible future ‘adventures’. Iran and other countries are not as afraid for the military power of the U.S. because they know that the U.S. army is “stressed” (as Bush calls it), if not “broken” (as Powell describes the situation) in Iraq.
Obviously, expanding the military will cost. Bigtime. The main question is whether it is doable for America to carry those extra costs. Consider this:
A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.
Combine that with the fact that the U.S. has already spent 500 billion dollar on the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and… suddenly it has become more expansive relatively than the Vietnam war.
Democrats have been calling for an increase in troops for some years already (think Kerry), to be dismissed by the Bush administration. The WaPo explains:
Bush yesterday had changed his mind. “I’m inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines,” he said. “And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea.”
When asked about his earlier statement “we’re winning”, Bush explained that he didn’t mean to say that the U.S. is winning now, but that the U.S. is “going to win”.
Sure, sounds plausible, since “we’ll win” and “we’re winning” mean the exact same thing.
O, wait, no they don’t.
Anyway, the above is, of course, quite irrelevant regarding whether or not expanding the size of the military is a wise thing to do. In my opinion, it makes a lot of sense. However, it has to be said, I am not American and will – therefore – not pay the taxes to make such a possible expansion possible. For me, it is purely a matter of objectively looking at the situation, without having to carry the financial burden. This is to say, for me it is a matter of ‘do the benefits outweigh the negatives, objectively‘, while for Americans it will also be a case of… what will the result of this be for my wallet? The personal aspect will be an aspect for most Americans, while this is not so for me. I’m looking at the general aspects.
The general aspect here is – obviously – the economic aspect as well. Let me do a 1+1 calculation here: if the military will be expanded, taxes should be raised or government spending should be cut in other areas, or both of course. This leads to the questions; can taxes be raised, how will this impact the economy in general and what kind of tax raise are we talking about. When cutting spending; what do they plan on cutting exactly?
In other words… questions, questions, questions, although the general idea of expanding the U.S. military seems logical, if not necessary to me.
Others on this:
Don Surber
The odd thing is, we are winning. Newsweek reported this week that the Iraqi economy is booming, with reporter Silvia Spring stating:
“Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are.�
The president hurt the cause in his Post interview. It will be interesting to see what clean-up on Aisle Bush 43 the White House communications office will attempt.
The Iraqi economy is booming, people! What was that about sectarian violence again?
So many questions, so little time. First thing I notice is that in the next to last paragraph, Bush says, “It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last for a while and that we’re going to need a military that’s capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace.” However, in the last paragraph, he says, “… There’s no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?”
I certainly take Bush’s point that the 55% of Americans who want U.S. troops in Iraq withdrawn within a year, or the 88% who oppose increasing the number of troops in Iraq, will be very relieved and happy to hear that a long war is assured, if we make our military larger. But I’m confused, and need to ask: Does Bush want peace, or does he want war? First he says he wants to achieve peace; then he says he wants to stay engaged in a long war. Which is it, then? Does he think peace and war are the same thing?
Sometimes, of course, it takes extra troops to ensure peace.
All those damned U.N. warkeepers!
Michael J. Stickings at The Reaction
Regardless, I hear that you want to expand the size of the military for the sake of the Iraq War and that nebulous war on terror. I am tempted to make some obvious quip about the matter of size, but I’ll restrain myself. Besides, whatever the size, it’s what you do with it, right? And look what you’ve done with it. Would more make any difference? Not, I’m afraid, with you deciding when and where to shove it in.
Bush Finally Admits We’re Not Winning in Iraq: He seems to be willing to consider every option but the right one: Bring the troops home.
California Yankee at Red State:
This is great news, but I cannot resist the temptation to say it’s about [expletives deleted] time. Secretary Rumsfeld should have recommended this years ago.
The Army has already been temporarily increased by 30,000 over the 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001. The Army wants to make the increase permanent and continue to grow by an additional 7,000 soldiers per year. It is estimated that every 10,000 additional soldiers costs about $1.2 billion a year.
I agree, by the way, with some of the first paragraph: Rumsfeld should have recommended it years ago. One of the main reasons for the failure in Iraq is that the U.S. didn’t send enough troops. If the U.S. military would have been expanded from the get-go, it might have saved the U.S. quite some money on the long term.
Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof:
1. How are they going to get more people to enlist with the great P.R. campaign going on in Iraq and Afghanistan unless they’re going to follow Charlie Rangel’s suggestion and bring back the draft?
Answer: Serious bribery: “Here, kid, sign up and we’ll give you your very own SUV painted in camouflage. Oh, and no more barracks; you’ll live in condos. Criminal record? No problem! Belong to a neo-Nazi gang? Hey, you must be really good with firearms!”
2. How are they going to blame this on the Clinton administration, seeing as how it was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who slashed the military and the defense budget during the first Bush administration and the Republican congress fought Clinton tooth and nail when he tried to re-grow it?
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.