Winning the Global War on Terror Through Reduction of Military Forces?

Winning the Global War on Terror Through Reduction of Military Forces?

With concerns that the current instability in Iraq could have a lasting impact in the whole Middle East region, Senators McCain and Lieberman addressed the need for increased US Military presence (more boots on the ground) in Iraq. Many analysts agree that the only chance of curbing the insurgent violence in that region is to bring in additional troops to help out the overworked and understaffed military presence in Iraq:

Warning that failure would be "catastrophic" and spread instability throughout the Middle East, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), on Friday expressed their support for a troop "surge" in Iraq - the plan reportedly being developed by the Bush administration to address growing insurgent violence..."The surge must be substantial, and it must be sustained," McCain said, recommending an increase of four to six brigades, mostly concentrated in Baghdad, which has seen the greatest amount of violence. It could mean an increase of around 20,000 troops. [McCain, Lieberman Support Troop Surge -- 01/05/2007]

Here's the question of the day:  Is it possible/feasible to increase the US Military presence in Iraq as we simultaneously reduce the size of the US Military in order to meet US Defense budgetary constraints? The Reduction of military force via Force Shaping is indeed the current reality. The military is being forced to fight the 'War on Terror' on a Peacetime budget:

In 2004, the Air Force had 372,000 active-duty Airmen. Today, the service has about 347,300. Through force shaping, the goal is to reduce that number by another 31,000 to about 316,000 by fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year 2007 alone, the Air Force has over 5,500 projected officer losses (about 70 percent of the goal) and 16,500 projected enlisted losses (almost 50 percent of the goal). These losses reflect the combination of targeted force shaping and normal attrition, which total over 30,000 each year. [Air Force May Hold Rif Board If Goal Not Met - 5 Jan 2007]

Many individuals, such as analysts, advisors, and military professional organizations, and as far back as the late 1990s have warned against reducing the military force. This warning definitely rings true now, as we are in times of war. The concern of the proposed reduction of troop levels and the need for increased troop numbers and military spending was brought up months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the following editorial:

Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, military leaders and personnel took hope from then Gov. Bush's pledge that "Help is on the way." Military people of all ranks genuinely believed that a Republican administration would bring with it the kind of defense spending they had enjoyed during the years of the Reagan build-up. The universal hope was that the force cuts would be reversed so that an already overworked military could catch its breath and get back to the basics...Add to that litany another serious issue...The refusal by the Bush administration - particularly Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and his aides - to recognize that the current size of the U.S. military is insufficient to carry out the ever-increasing operational taskings in the war against terror and the (much-anticipated) showdown with Iraq.[Rumsfeld Force Cuts Betray the Military Community - November 13, 2002 12:11]

The irony is that prior to September 11, 2001, Congress recognized that the current decrease in Military readiness was being affected partially by increased operations tempo and the number of experienced Airmen getting out of the service:

Decreases in readiness are caused by past under funding of spares, high operations tempo, loss of experienced airmen, and an aging aircraft fleet. [Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Policy: Key Issues in the 107th Congress...Updated February 27, 2001]

The above congressional findings were in part as a result of the concerns brought up during the late 1990s about the decreasing troop levels and inadequate military spending. For Example, the Air Force Association, a professional military organization expressed this concern in their periodical back in 1997:

We believe that thefurther reductions now planned are a big mistake and that they will undermine our professed strategy for national defense. In World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, the United States severely underestimated the force structure that would be required. We do not know what the penalty may be if we repeat that mistake in the next conflict. The operations tempo and the workload under which military organizations are laboring in peacetime indicates that additional force structure, not less, may be required. Our forces must meet the requirement to cover two major theater wars by shifting nimbly from one conflict to the other. Yet the Administration proposes to cut forces still more, even as demands intensify on the units that remain. [Global Force - November 1997]

Then Defense Secretary William Cohen, back in 1998, saw firsthand how military personnel were impacted by low manning as a result of reduced retention, high operations tempo, and over-utilization of people:

DefenseLINK News: Cohen Visits Georgia Base to Gauge Problems, Morale

Now here is the bottom line: Undermanned military units was already an existing problem during the 1990s. Yes, there was a temporary surge of military personnel after September 11th; however, current troop levels have already been significantly reduced as a result of the ongoing strategic reduction of military forces.  Other than this temporary surge, where is the evidence that the manning problems, as recognized by Congress, was ever rectified?  Although there is a legitimate need to increase troop levels in Iraq, this task will be hampered by military members at home station already having to "do more with less". Despite the existing problem of our military members being over-utilized and undermanned both at home station and at the deployed location, we continue to downsize our military force. What is quite troubling is that we are downsizing our military force while threats from terrorists organizations and rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, increase.  With members of Congress calling for increased troop levels, what is the justification for the continued reduction of our military forces? 

Technorati Tags: us military presence, quot, john mccain, joseph lieberman, iraq, insurgent, middle east region, curbing, ariz, catastrophic, conn, senators, sens, bush administration, troop, baghdad, boots