Friday, January 12, 2007
The numbers show the fallacy of US's "surge" policy
The Economist is the prince of publications for people interested in the state of the world. It's head and shoulders above the coverage of international affairs in the broadsheets. One of the bits I like about it is the small graphs. The latest edition has one entitled "Overstretched and over there". I would scan it for you but the software is playing up. Anyway it is actually two graphs one showing the size of the US army since 1950 and the other is the number of troops the US has in Iraq. Each is revealing in its own way.
Take the size of the US army. The fact is that at the height of the Korean War and also during Vietnam which Iraq is increasingly being compared to the strength of the US Army was nearly 1,600,000. Now it is only just over 400,000. This is nearly half the size it had been from the end of Vietnam to the end of the cold war. At arguably a time in international affairs when the world has been looking for the US to show leadership it has been scaling back it's ability to put troops on the ground.
Examination of the number of US troops in Iraq shows that around the end of both 2004 and 2005 the number of US troops in country was about 160,000 now it is just over 130,000. The fact is the "surge" of troops is more like a trickle. Adding another 20,000 troops will only take the Americans up to where they have been already twice before in the Iraq deployment.
Optimists in the US military establishment would point to sea change in the capabilities of the US armed forces called the Revolution in Military Affairs. It has involved spending hundreds of billions on advanced weaponary and command control and communications capabilities. I would argue that you can have all the technology you want but at the end of the day there has been no technological solution for armies to be able to hold ground that doesn't involve disciplined and well trained and supported troops. In short a fat lot of good it has done them in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of the day if they haven't got the numbers they can't finish the job. ¶ 7:37 pm
Take the size of the US army. The fact is that at the height of the Korean War and also during Vietnam which Iraq is increasingly being compared to the strength of the US Army was nearly 1,600,000. Now it is only just over 400,000. This is nearly half the size it had been from the end of Vietnam to the end of the cold war. At arguably a time in international affairs when the world has been looking for the US to show leadership it has been scaling back it's ability to put troops on the ground.
Examination of the number of US troops in Iraq shows that around the end of both 2004 and 2005 the number of US troops in country was about 160,000 now it is just over 130,000. The fact is the "surge" of troops is more like a trickle. Adding another 20,000 troops will only take the Americans up to where they have been already twice before in the Iraq deployment.
Optimists in the US military establishment would point to sea change in the capabilities of the US armed forces called the Revolution in Military Affairs. It has involved spending hundreds of billions on advanced weaponary and command control and communications capabilities. I would argue that you can have all the technology you want but at the end of the day there has been no technological solution for armies to be able to hold ground that doesn't involve disciplined and well trained and supported troops. In short a fat lot of good it has done them in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of the day if they haven't got the numbers they can't finish the job. ¶ 7:37 pm
Comments:
<< Home
That may be true, but the size of the army in the past can't be a guide to the size of the force necessary in all future conflicts. The logical thing for the Army to do would be to assess (based on past failures) what sort of force was necessary for what they wanted to achieve, and make it happen. If they still can't get the necessary manpower then the exercise is probably a waste of time. On the other hand, 20,000 might just be enough for what they want. I think we need to listen to other military experts to gauge the credibility of the 'surge'. Being lazy I haven't done this yet.
"the size of the army in the past can't be a guide to the size of the force necessary in all future conflicts."
I would argue that what they are doing in Iraq is not a particulary new military context. The obvious predecessor was Vietnam.
The American military machine is superbly good at somethings for instance if you want a tonne of high explosive delivered anywhere on the global with pin point accuracy they are the people to talk to.
But the US military is not good at counter insurgency which is a very different style of warfare.
I would have greater hope if the Iraqi security forces weren't so completely useless.
Post a Comment
I would argue that what they are doing in Iraq is not a particulary new military context. The obvious predecessor was Vietnam.
The American military machine is superbly good at somethings for instance if you want a tonne of high explosive delivered anywhere on the global with pin point accuracy they are the people to talk to.
But the US military is not good at counter insurgency which is a very different style of warfare.
I would have greater hope if the Iraqi security forces weren't so completely useless.
<< Home
