[richlevy]

Originally Posted by warch

My problem with Bush is less his rhetoric and more what I perceive to be his incompetence as commander and chief.

My problems have everything to do with his rhetoric and his competence.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq.

1) In the case of Iraq, the fact that we went in at all without preparing.
2) We went in light into both places, considering what would be needed for occupation.
3) We split our forces between both places.
4) In the case of Iraq, because we jumped the gun, we committed %90 of the forces to the 'coalition', taking the majority of the casualties, physical and political.

If the Iraqis do not get it under control we will have to 'cut and run' anyway. Right now, we have essentially ceded control of our military to the competence of the Iraqi government.

If the government begins to lose control, we will have to either leave or commit more troops. If we have to ratchet up the force level to 400 thousand, this will a) probably force the reinstatement of the draft and b) force the issue of the cost of the war to the point where the IOU's cannot be hidden. We are already increasing the 'secret debt' of this country to the point where, when counted with the interest on our 'real debt', will force more and more resources to be used to pay interest.

I know the draft is considered political suicide, but if pushed to the wall the argument will be towards the neccesity of the moment, ignoring the decisions that got to that moment. Any attempt to debate that topic would be met with cries of 'treason' and 'failure to support the troops'.

It's a clusterf**k, and the options are all bad. There is only one good scenario (legitimate secular democracy), and multiple bad scenarios

Long term US troop presence (at least 5-10 more years).
Islamic theocracy with or without Iranian involvement.
Complete breakdown into civil war and a failed state.
Rise of 'Saddam Hussein II', a brutal US supported dictator.

On a purely money level, we are hemorrhaging cash. The 8-billion-a-month figure is probably low, considering new reports about military equipment wear. Items in the soon-to-be-increased Pentagon budget are actually additional war related costs.

Coupled with tax cuts, this is having an effect on money being returned to us in the form of grants, services, etc. Money for everything is drying up, including student loans, non-military research grants, and other items having to do with the future competitiveness of this country.

We are mortgaging our future for this war and the administration is doing everything possible to shift more and more of the costs into the future. This is a lot like putting your mortage payments on your credit card and paying the minimum.

From the CRS report.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States has initiated
three military operations:
!
Operation EnduringFreedom (OEF) coveringAfghanistan and other
Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations ranging from the
Philippines to Djibouti, thatbeganimmediatelyafter the9/11 attacks
and continues;
!
Operation Noble Eagle (ONE) providing enhanced securityfor U.S.
military bases and other homeland security, that was launched in
response to the attacks; and
!
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) that began in the fall of 2002 with
the buildup of troops for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and
continues with counter-insurgency and stability operations.

What is most disturbing is that CRF could not figure why the costs were increasing so rapidly.

Some of the reasons for higher operating costs are known.
(snip)
These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50% increase of over $20 billion
in operating costs.
(snip)
These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases or predict whether these procurement levels are temporary or likely to rise still further. DOD has provided little information about overall requirements to replace worn equipment or to upgrade capabilities, or how war requirements relate to ongoing peacetime investment.