Strained, Army Looks to Guard for More Relief

The war in Iraq has strained the U.S. Army to its limit according to an internal Army document that was given to the New York Times.

Read it and weep. The Bush administration's adventure in Iraq (a war of choice over deliberately skewed intelligence) is wrecking the U.S. military. Trapped in a quagmire of its own making, the Bush administration either needs a bigger army, must call up more National Guard units to active duty, or cut back on its foreign commitments.

Unable to admit its mistakes and unwilling to take any action that might jeopardize Republicans' chances in what appears to be an already perilous (for incumbents) mid-term election, the Army is stuck trying to respond to increasingly difficult demands without the resources to do the jobs it is being asked to do.

While the New York Times is reporting this as news now, the bind the U.S. military ground forces now find themselves in was predicted about a year ago by a number of retired military officers with ties to the officer corps still on active duty.

Here are some key paragraphs from the New York Times article:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments.

Then there's this:

While no decision has been made to mobilize more Guard forces, and may not need to be before midterm elections, the prospect presents the Bush administration with a politically vexing problem: how, without expanding the Army, to balance the pressing need for troops in the field against promises to limit overseas deployments for the Guard.

The National Guard has a goal of allowing five years at home between foreign deployments so as not to disrupt the family life and careers of its citizen soldiers. But instead it has been sending units every three to four years, according to Guard officials.

The question of how to sustain the high level of forces abroad became more acute this week as General John P. Abizaid, the senior American commander in the Middle East, said that the number of troops in Iraq, currently at more than 140,000, could not be expected to drop until next spring at the very earliest.

That disclosure comes amid many signs of mounting strain on active Army units. So many are deployed or only recently returned from combat duty that only two or three combat brigades — perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 troops — are fully ready to respond in case of unexpected crises, according to a senior Army general.

You read that right: the U.S. currently has 7,000 to 10,000 troops capable of responding to a crisis elsewhere in the world.

This slow-motion wrecking of the U.S. military has been taking place in full view of the U.S. Congress and with its complicit silence. Congressional leaders have failed their constitutional duties to provide oversight for the actions of the executive branch.

Members of Congress took an oath to the Constitution, not their president and not their party. The members of the Republican majorities in the House and, to a lesser extent, the Senate have forgotten that in their lock-step, unquestioning loyalty to the Bush administration.

The military is paying the price fderelictioniliction of congressional duty.

Blind loyalty to failed policies does not demonstrate support for our troops; in fact, it undermines their mission, their safety and our security.