flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/3522419464/sizes/s/
The new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, "take, clear and hold," uses Afghan national troops to maintain security after offensive coaltiion operations because there are not sufficient coalition forces to do the job.
Operations in Iraq in recent years required extensions of deployments, recalls to active service and use of national guard troops, to maintain on average 150,000 forces in the field. The U.S. undoubtedly lowered its commitment in Afghanistan in order to provide necessary force in Iraq without straining the services alarmingly.
The failure to commit sufficient forces has consequences beyond the theater of operations as well.
During this same period, Iran and North Korea pushed forward with their nuclear development programs. North Korea continues to test missiles and create regional instability in the face of unanimous United Nations security council sanctions. Iran provides weapons and financial support to militant groups in Lebanon and shows no sign of compromise on its nuclear program. Such nations take action in opposition to U.S. national security policies with the likely confidence that the United States could not undertake another military campaign while at full capacity.
Of course, the U.S. could undertake specific and limited military operations, but not a major campaign. Military planners are reviewing defense strategy to incorporate what has been learned in the force-intensive and prolonged operatoins in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to access what we need to prepare for future conflicts.
It would take an act of Congress to substantially increase American troop strength. Public resistence to military action and concern about the federal deficit may weigh against allocating funds for additional troops, but this is something the U.S. must do. Showing those who pose international threats to stability and security that we cannot take military action, only empowers them. Increasing the numbers in the forces does not require using them for offensive purposes. It does, however, project our strangth through the potential use of force. In the long run, this will avoid military conflicts and aid our diplomatic and multilateral efforts to maintain stability.
Comments
They way to promote peace is not through WAR! War is only a way for profit and control. Never for peace, just money! Those who think we need more WAR are part of the problem with this World!
Colin Powell relates that in 1993, then-Sec. State Madeline Albright asked him, “what’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Powell later wrote, “I thought I would have an aneurysm.”
But we must consider that if we have a large military, there will be a temptation to use it both from the government (it was assumed in the Bush administration, long before intelligence and arguments were being made in favor, that we would go to war with Sadaam Hussein) and the people ("let's put a boot in their ass, it's the American way!)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!