FP - Foreign Policy Magazine has a number of good articles in its current issue. One however, stands out:
The US Military Speaks Out on What Worries It Most
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...
In an exclusive new index, Foreign Policy and the Center for a New American Security surveyed more than 3,400 active and retired officers at the highest levels of command about the state of the U.S. military. They see a force stretched dangerously thin and a country ill-prepared for the next fight.
There's a lot of interest here. Best to read thewhole article in the link but highlights provided below
While there is a great deal of ground covered here, one paragraph stood out
One of the cornerstones of modern democracies is that civilian, not military, leaders make the strategic decisions regarding both war and peace. But that doesn’t mean military commanders always agree with or have confidence in those decisions.
When asked how much confidence they have in other U.S. government institutions and departments, the index’s officers report low levels of trust nearly across the board. For instance, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 means the officers have a great deal of confidence in the department or institution and 1 means they have none, the officers put their level of confidence in the presidency at 5.5. Some 16 percent express no confidence at all in the president. The index’s officers gave the CIA an average confidence rating of 4.7 and the Department of State, 4.1. The Department of Veterans Affairs received a confidence rating of just 4.5 and the Department of Defense, 5.6. The officers say their level of confidence in the U.S. Congress is the lowest, at an average of just 2.7.
Emphasis added.
There's really not enough information breaking all of this down but one has to wonder:
Why does CONGRESS have such a low index of trust? Could it be that our Military sees the hypocrisy at work here in Congress refusing to DO ANYTHING of substance regarding the war in Iraq? Keep in mind that the President has a HIGHER rating of confidence - with a 5.5 BUT 16% of officers express NO CONFIDENCE AT ALL in the President
More questions need to be asked to discern what is happening here.... though one suspects that our Military is just as fed up as the rest of our populace with course of the war in Iraq.
The condition of our military gives cause for alarm
These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. <b.Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require.</strong> More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether "the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military," 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."
As far as our ability to handle additional conflict in the world:
Asked whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to successfully wage another major war at this time, 80 percent of the officers say that it is unreasonable. The officers were also asked about four specific hot spots—Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Taiwan Strait—and how prepared they believe the United States is to successfully fight a major combat operation there, were a war to break out today. Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 meaning that the United States is fully prepared and 1 meaning that the United States is unable to execute such a mission, the officers put America’s preparedness for war against Iran at just 4.5. The average readiness score for America’s armed forces to go to war in those four hot spots was 4.8.
so.... a war with Iran would NOT be a good idea at this point - no matter what our Pres may think......
I am personally, deeply disturbed by this:
When the officers were asked if they agree or disagree with the statement "Torture is never acceptable," opinions were split. Fifty-three percent agreed, and 44 percent disagree. Nineteen percent, nearly 1 in 5 officers, say they "strongly disagree" with the notion that torture is never acceptable. Asked if they believe waterboarding is torture, opinions were similarly divided. About 46 percent of the officers say they agree with the statement "Waterboarding is torture," and about 43 percent say they disagree.
The message we were once taught - and which people like Captain Ian Fishback still believe - that there are distinct and clear LIMITS to behavior that we are allowed, that TORTURE is most emphatically NOT allowed, has been undermined by a Presidency that has actively endorsed such behavior. We should be appalled that 19% of those polled believe torture IS acceptable (even if under limited circumstances) What has happened to the ethical and moral high ground this nation used to occupy?
An article in the same issue on the Geneva Convention should be required reading for our military - and national leaders:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...
I STRONGLY urge people to read the whole article on what our military thinks but there are a number of points that should be made:
Command decisions relating to the War in Iraq were poorly rated - particularly the inadequate number of troops assigned to the mission and trhe decision to disband the Iraqi Army.
However those polled do not believe that the war in 'unwinnable' and many DO believe that the 'surge' has had a positive impact. one wonders how that is measured howeverand whether that is simply a simplistic - and limited view based on what those involved are exposed to - and if that pov would STILL hold given recent events
As expected, recruiting and retention is of concern
................. Nearly 80 percent support expanding options for legal, foreign permanent residents of the United States to serve in exchange for U.S. citizenship. A high percentage of officers, about 6 in 10, also support the idea of allowing more recruits who have a high school equivalency degree—but no diploma—to serve. Almost 40 percent favor reinstating the draft.
Almost none of the officers, however, say they support increasing the use of "moral waivers," which allow recruits with past criminal or drug convictions the opportunity to serve. In 2003, the Army handed out 4,644 of those waivers. Last year, that number nearly tripled, jumping to 12,057. If the opinions of the index’s officers are any indication, that shift may be a mistake.
Only 7 percent say they support the use of criminal, health, and other waivers ......... In contrast, more than 20 percent say they support allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly .............And nearly half say that the maximum age for recruits, already increased since 2006 to the age of 42, should be revised upward again.............. .
So... citizenship as an incentive (I wonder if the historically informed see the parallels to Rome's transition from Republic to Empire in this?)...... Moral waivers are NOT good (gays are 'better' in a 3 to 1 margin but still only approved by 1/5 of the total).... HS equivalaencies are OK as are older recruits (?!?!?!?)....
We need to expand our ground forces - especially special ops numbers - but only 2% see a need for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
This article - indeed the whole issue of FP - is worth a read. There's also an article on the "Next Generation of Terrorists":
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...
A story n the long term cost of caring for the wounded is aptly titled in "Iraq's 100 Year Mortgage":
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/...
Information in that article should be of interest to all. In particular:
The ratio of wounded in combat to killed in Iraq is 7 to 1; in Vietnam, it was 2.6 to 1, and in World War II, 2 to 1. If all injuries are included, such as those from road accidents or debilitating illnesses, Iraq has produced 15 wounded for every single fatality.
It is clear that we are now far better at saving lives now (though nobody seems to be asking 'at what cost to those survivors). However, the use of body and vehicle armor has had the effect of REDUCING what would have been far higher casualty rates.
If a ratio of dead to wounded similar to Vietnam was in place, half of those 'wounded' in Iraq would have DIED.
The number of American soldiers killed in Iraq would be 11,000 or even higher
Our focus on 'dead Americans' is UNDERSTATING the REAL cost of this war... we do all we can to keep people alive - people that would have died in any other war we ever fought.... people that will be requiring far more care on average than past casualties - with all too many sufferring from severe and debilitating injuries that may leave them stuck in a bed for the rest of their life.
all of it food for thought..... and some of it highlighting a need to ask even MORE questions.