Posted on 01/24/2006 1:58:04 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
WASHINGTON - Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.
As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.
"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.
Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."
He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.
The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.
Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration officials have hotly contested that view.
George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.
"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.
Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.
For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers — not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty — the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.
Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.
Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.
"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."
Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.
Krepinevich is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit policy research institute.
He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.
Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the private Brookings Institution, said in a recent interview that "it's a judgment call" whether the risk of breaking the Army is great enough to warrant expanding its size.
"I say yes. But it's a judgment call, because so far the Army isn't broken," O'Hanlon said.
I call BS.
How does this guy know that they are not breaking the back of the terrorists?
And BTW so he says that there are no Iraqi troops?
Where the heck was this guy? Now even the local insurgents are going after foreign terrorists. Whatever offensive they did, it worked, because the Iraqis find them offensive and are taking action against them.
Did Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha write this one?
NOW.....HOW would HE know HOW many INSURGENTS there ARE????? Talk about a Coward.
More lies from the left.
It would be nice to have a checkbox on our Fed Tax to donate $50 or $100 directly to the troops.
And maybe some PSA's that direct folks to where they can donate goodies and necessities.
If you didn't watch the news, you'd never know there was a WORLD war on. That is so strange when contrasted with WWII.
Isn't that what OBL said in his last communique? (rolling eyes). Now the leftist press is parotting OBL's 'talking points'!
If that's true, then it must be Army property, and, given the conclusions, and the fact that Army info like this should be TOP SECRET, and that it is seriously priviliged info in a national security sense -- I wonder who at AP, or in the "leaks" division at the Pentagon, or the author himself, is going to do major time in the slammer for this.
Oh yeah, I forgot, compromising national security and bad-mouthing the military is the newfound, treasonous job of our space-cadet press.
We don't have to.
The Iraqis will break the back of the insurgency. As is now starting to happen. We will continually take more of an advisory and support role.
It is odd that this was not mentioned in this hit piece. Not.
;0)
To wax Rumsfeldian, there are two ways in which a report like this can be characterized -- BS, or true. If it's BS, we can dismiss and go on about the prosecution of the war as per normal. If it's NOT BS, then I have some serious concerns about our ability to handle a real war with real casualties.
(Not to minimize anybody's pain, but what would it be like if we took 2000 KIA in a single day as opposed to over a span of four years?)
From the article:
"While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry."
Which means it is a bogus lie that some dems sent to the Pentagon and then sent to the press to back up OBL!! These people are the enemies of this country!
WONDER how much of what he wrote about Vietnam he's writing about IRAQ? See Below for his Vietnam Book....
The Army and Vietnam (Paperback)
by Andrew F., Jr. Krepinevich "In early June 1965 the United States Army had been in South Vietnam in one capacity or another for nearly fifteen years..." (more)
SIPs: traditional counterinsurgency doctrine, big unit war, airmobile forces, insurgent infrastructure, demographic frontier (more)
CAPs: South Vietnam, Viet Cong, Southeast Asia, Army Concept, General Westmoreland (more)
(2 customer reviews)
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Krepinevich, a major with the Strategic Plans and Policy Division of the Army, raises serious questions about the military's ability to learn from its mistakes in Vietnam. The emphasis here is on the Army's stubborn insistence on pursuing a strategy of attrition, through large-unit operations and heavy firepower, and largely ignoring the political and social dimensions that form the foundation of successful counterinsurgency warfare. The result was a high-cost, low-payoff strategy which the Army stuck with until civilian leaders in the defense establishment openly challenged the policy after the Tet Offensive. Krepinevich praises the pacification programs of the Marines and suggests that their methods could have been profitably employed by the Army. More significantly, he suggests that the Vietnam experience has had little effect on the doctrine by which the Army is currently preparing for future low-intensity engagements. Illustrations.
Copyright 1987 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
Why was the U.S. Army in Vietnam? What was the nature of the war? What was the Army's plan for winning? Was there a possibility the war could have been won? A career Army officer, Major Krepinevich answers these questions and argues in a cogent and probing analysis that the Army believed that its might and firepower left it no room to lose; and that, because of that belief, it really had no chance to win. This excellent book is well researched in recently declassified documents and well written. Because it is a broad survey, it opens more questions than it answers, leaving many interesting side trails for further research. For all readers interested in Vietnam, especially those who supported the war. Edward Gibson, James Madison Univ. Lib., Harrisonburg, Va.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Inside This Book (learn more)
First Sentence:
In early June 1965 the United States Army had been in South Vietnam in one capacity or another for nearly fifteen years. Read the first page
Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
traditional counterinsurgency doctrine, big unit war, airmobile forces, insurgent infrastructure, demographic frontier, unconventional warfare operations, counterinsurgency mission, counterinsurgency capability, counterinsurgent forces, defeating the insurgents, insurgent strength, attrition strategy, airmobile concept, airmobile division, maneuver battalions, enclave approach, enclave strategy, population security, advisory duty, insurgency conflict, main force units, overt invasion, counterinsurgency operations, counterguerrilla operations, counterinsurgency training
Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
South Vietnam, Viet Cong, Southeast Asia, Army Concept, General Westmoreland, General Johnson, General Taylor, World War, Tet Offensive, President Johnson, General Wheeler, Joint Chiefs, White House, Korean War, General Decker, General Harkins, Central Highlands, Airborne Division, State Department, Alexis Johnson, Sir Robert Thompson, Third World, Howze Board, President Kennedy, Ambassador Taylor
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.