Maybe They Can’t Do It — Even When You Give Them What They Ask For UPDATE
The military spin- down from President Obama’s Afghan decision to give them what General McChrystal asked for is sobering to watch.
According to the NYTimes, “General Rodriguez did not back away from [Obama's] timeline, saying that all of the additional troops would be in Afghanistan within 9 to 11 months. But he spoke in some of the bluntest terms yet about the difficulties in achieving that goal. ‘There’s lots of risks in here, but we’re going to try to get them in as fast as we can,’ he said in an interview at his heavily fortified headquarters. ‘There’s a lot of things that have to line up perfectly.’
“A central tenet of Mr. Obama’s revised strategy for Afghanistan is to knock the Taliban on their heels with a wave of American forces, providing security and buying time for the Afghan Army and the national police to train and take over security duties.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/world/asia/15mullen.html?_r=1&ref=world
Add to that President Karzai’s announcement that Afghanistan will not have the financial resources to pay for its own security until 2024. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/world/asia/09gates.html?scp=2&sq=Karzai&st=cse
UPDATE: This story in the Washington Post underlines a point made in the comments here: It just isn’t the military who are going, but the contractors as well. “The surge of 30,000 U.S. troops into Afghanistan could be accompanied by a surge of up to 56,000 contractors, vastly expanding the presence of personnel from the U.S. private sector in a war zone, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service.
“CRS, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, said it expects an additional 26,000 to 56,000 contractors to be sent to Afghanistan. That would bring the number of contractors in the country to anywhere from 130,000 to 160,000.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121504850.html
I have said that regarding Afghanistan, while I do not agree with our continuing there, that I will not criticize President Obama and I mean that.
I do think it worthwhile however to take a look at what I think is a systemic problem we have in our military. It has continued under both Democrat and Republican administrations but I have not heard of anyone making a thorough review of it.
I think one big problem with how we Americans have our military structured is the extensive use by our military of contractors. It is not so much a “problem” as it is a mistake our leaders made long ago and which we as a people have not yet pressured them to correct.
In the old, pre-private contractor days of our military, if we deployed 100,000 soldiers, most of them would be in support roles like cooking, logistics (hauling munitions and the like), laundry, mechanic pool, engineers, and medical teams. Under this example of 100,000 troops deployed, probably only about 30,000 of the deployed troops would actually be in combat; the other 70,000 would be in support services. This structure and approach is in a way self-limiting, in that everyone involved is in the military, and that for large deployments the nation would need to employ the draft, the upshot being that everyone would be very interested in ending the war end sooner rather than later. That in turn would have a noticeable effect on policy.
Nowadays however, since we use so many private contractors for logistics, food and clothing services, and vehicular and logistics, etc., if we have 100,000 soldiers deployed, probably 80,000 of them are in active fighting.
All this is quite boring I know, but try to think for a moment, about the ramifications of so many contractors.
Consider for example, the food service contractor. If he get around $10 per plate (which seems reasonable enough), and he serves 100,000 meals, three times a day, (3 x 100,000 x $10 per plate) that amounts to $ 3 million per day, or $90 million per month. How long does the food service contractor want the war to continue? How long does the company that contracts fleet (vehicle) services want to war to continue? Multiply all this out for the various contractors and it is obvious there is a ton of money at stake. The upshot is the contractors want the war to go on and on, and they lobby Congress accordingly.
In fact I noticed how, when Republicans held Congress, Democrats moaned long and loud about the Iraq war, but since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 however, they have become quieter and quieter. No of course they are almost supine. Why? Because when the Republicans ran Congress, they got the military contractor dinero. Now that Democrats are running Congress, they are receiving the same largesse. The temptation of all that money floating around and possibly making its way into pockets is too great for any politician to resist and frankly we (the public), knowing as we surely must know, the weaknesses of our legislators, should not set up a system that not only seriously tempts our politicians, but also has the effect of lengthening wars.
And so it seems the best policy is to direct the military to stop hiring private contractors; to do all that work in-house so to speak. These efforts would be more self-limiting in that it would require more soldiers and that, in and of itself would be a good thing.
War is ugly, very ugly and very sad, but it should also be expensive and difficult enough that we the people and our leaders think long and hard about getting into one, and that if we do find we need to go to war, it should be expensive and difficult enough that we want to end it sooner rather than later.
All this having been said I would reiterate that – now that our President has decided to move more troops into Afghanistan – we need to support both him and the troops and help as best we can to wrap this up victoriously. However once we are finished with Afghanistan, we should tell the military to stop hiring these private contractors.
Ken: Interesting comments, but it boils down to one word for me: Draft. If the real pain were truly shared by all, I think we’d be slower to jump in and quicker to get out, or at least we’d have a better sense as a nation of the true costs, material and physical and spiritual.
Again, easy for me to say now that I am (hopefully) past draft age. And my daughter’s infatuation with all things princess doesn’t seem to indicate a military career at this point…
If 30K new troops doesn’t accomplish the mission, we can always send more.
Jim: How right you are! Aren’t you?
Ken: I was once skeptical about the use of the phrase, “national security state.” More and more, I am persuaded that one of the legacies of the Cold War is an economy deeply dependent on military contractors, not just those who deliver meals and clean clothes, but those who build the planes and make the weapons. With so many plants and factories parceled out in so many congressional districts, our political “leaders,” would be one-termers if they cut budgets (and jobs) in their own districts. This beast will only be tamed when the Chinese et al. ask for their loans back.
You raise an interesting point, one that I hope our government and military leaders thought through back when we instituted the “all volunteer” force.
There in fact is no “volunteer” military in the world; we should disabuse ourselves of that notion right now. All soldiers in the world are paid; none serve at no-cost. And so none are “volunteers”.
Whether we realize it or not, we are in the process of building a military class of people in our land. Now, that in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is simply important that we realize what we are in the process of doing.
My wife has family in Chile and they have had a military class of society since their independence from Spain (c1809). Theoretically the Chilean military protects the nation and is separate from government; the president is hot commander of the military. The president chooses a commander for the military, but he (nowadays she, actually) does not control the military. The Chilean military is supposed to be non-political, to serve and protect whatever sort of government the people choose to put in power. Chile’s military was set up on the Prussian model of the 1800’s and throughout their history, in comparison with the other Latin nations (an important qualifier); it has for the most part worked well enough for them. In any case, Chileans certainly have not ever thought of changing this, and they are not about to change it now.
And so we should understand that we have set up a system of a paid military class of people.
- How are they paid? They are paid by the government
- Whom do they serve? They serve the USA
- Who to they protect? The president and the people of the USA
- How do they receive pay raises and improve their living standard? They receive raises from Congress via Presidential request
- Can a paid military class like this forever keep itself separate from and unstained by the rough and tumble games of politics and influence peddling? No it cannot.
- Is a paid military class the end of the republic? No; a paid military class is certainly not the end of the republic. It is just one manner in which a nation might organize its military.
- Is instituting a paid military class a good thing, or a bad thing for the USA? I am trying to figure that out.
My typing is awful soemtimes – Typo:
My wife has family in Chile and they have had a military class of society since their independence from Spain (c1809). Theoretically the Chilean military protects the nation and is separate from [politics] government; the president is [n]ot commander of the military.
And you are correct Margaret – just as old Eisenhauer was when he warned of the growth of the military-industrial complex.
It seems after this Afghan war is finished, we ought to take an honest look at our military and decide if we like what we see, and where we want to go with it.
Ken: it’s not just our military who need an honest looking at; our policies and our politicians; ourselves!
Exactly – Thanks Margaret.
You guys inspired me to read the Eisenhauer beware the military-industrial complex speech. He actually raised two issues we should fear: the one we all know: how deeply our military and arms industry has become embedded in our economy, and how we need to be vigilant that this does not compromise our democratic principles.
But another point he raised is one that’s also pretty timely:
” As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.”
It’s a little unnerving that a speech written 50 years ago sounds like it could have been said yesterday.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
So if we need weapons to help the economy,let’s get out of Iraq, Afghanistant, and Israel and bring back Star Wars. We can just have polishing ceremonies periodically where we maintain a continual gleam to weapons we can work on to never use..
Irene Baldwin: Your Eisenhower quote reminded me of why I had been thinking as I had. In the book I’ve been reading (and am still reading), America’s Cold War: The Politics of Insecurity, Eisenhower’s views stood out in contrast to his predecessor (Truman) and successors (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon) in understanding the dark side of pursuing the armaments race with the Soviets. Was that because he was a military man? Jimmy Carter is the only other example, and though he is looked down upon now, he was an ardent pursuer of diplomatic efforts during his time in office.
Yes, Margaret , I was also really struck that it took a general to first point this out. I guess, who would know better? I’ll add the book you’re reading to my own (very long) list of books to get to.
What exactly is the definition of the phrase “National Security State”? I have often seen it used over the decades, but never defined.
I have taken the phrase, National Security State, to mean the reorganization of our politics and economy around the maintenance of national security following World War II. Over the decades it has grown beyond its initial purpose, the containment of Soviet power, and after 9/11, it took on new life in the pursuit of Al Queda and other terrorist groups. The original legislative source for these development is the National Security Act of 1947. See: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/17603.htm