There seems to be a pattern emerging

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

In bits a pieces there seems to be a pattern emerging around US military strength and deployment. It is no secret that Rumsfeld's vision for the military is to downsize troops and increase technology. The plan involves moving towards a force where highly trained (and in the future perhaps modified) soldiers operate in a high tech, rapid deployment units, backed by more high tech armaments (i.e. smart bomb technology, lasers, space-bsed systems, etc). The first minor test of this was Iraq, where many have complained that there was/is just not enough "boots" on the ground. However, I don't think that the "plan" is as simple as it generally being framed.

There are a number of things that are playing out right now: downsizing or closure of some bases overseas with redeployment to other areas; closing of US military bases; issuance of "stop loss" orders to soldiers due to end their enlistments; privatizing large sections of military operations; increasing the size of the standing military.

There is a global repositioning of US forces happening. Bases in the US are closing, but smaller command center type operations are being redeployed all over the globe - particularly in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. This would appear to be part of the "rapid deployment" scenario that Rumsfeld wants to have. Whatever the hopes for highly trained super soldiers, those forces do not exist (at least not in numbers) at this time. The placement of troops around the globe requires more troops not less, and so the numbers are inching up. The force size is being extended by the issuance of "stop loss" orders and by adding new troops to the mix. ("Stop loss" orders extend the tours of military personnel indefinitely.) Rumsfeld is also contracting out to private companies tasks that were formerly within the military (from communications, to food service to security). However, unlike Ridgeway (12/04/03), I don't think the goal is a total privitzation of the military. Rather, a way of creating more deployable fighting troops.

All of this repositioning and increasing fighting force strength is happening rapidly. It is not simply an issue of more troops for Iraq. There are new "offensives" on the horizon, it is just not clear what all of them are. We do know that the Pentagon readies anti-al-Qaeda offensive inside Pakistan probably for spring of 2004, and that Rumsfeld exerting pressure on Bush to launch military strike against Syria. There has also been speculation about Iran, The Sudan, and North Korea. It is also clear that Russia is nervous about US activities and fears they may be a target ( Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain and Russia organizing nuke drill, and the strategically placed denial by Powell No plan to ‘surround’ Russia militarily: US).

Bush is expanding the Pentagon's budget for this year and the next and the next. Those increases do not reflect the cost of engagements. For example, above the planned 2004 Pentagon increase is the estimated $50 billion additional for Iraq. Nor does it reflect the proposed spring 2004 Pakistan/Afghanistan initiative. Each "theater" will have its own cost that will need funding above and beyond the planned increases.

So what do I see happening?
The Pentagon is repositioning for multiple offensives, or a sequence of offensives, in the near future. Like Iraq, these will be preemptive strikes with massive fire power and probably smaller force strengths than most would recommend. Troop size is being enhanced by the outsourcing or outright privatizing of previously military operations. It is also being (unconstitutionally) enlarged by adding active forces, and stopping exisiting forces from leaving the military. The massive troop cycling currently going on in Iraq may serve a political purpose, but it is also setting up for the redeployment of those forces later in 2004 or early 2005. The timing seems to also to match the deployment contracts for Reserve and Guard forces (as I understand them anyway).

In the short term (from now until 2008), it looks to me like the US is being set up to go through a series of preemptive military invasions. We will soo start to see what the generatio long (or multi-generational) "war on terrorism" looks like.

Resources
11/24/03 Hallinan, FPIF, RUMSFELD'S NEW MODEL ARMY

Privitization
2/02/04 Cahlink, GovExec, Pentagon sets plan to convert, outsource, military jobs

12/08/03 Wolf, UTJ, New kinks in the military-industrial complex

12/04/03 Ridgeway, Village Voice, Secretary of Defense Aims to Privatize the U.S. Military

Troop Strength
1/29/04 Graham, Wa. Post, 30,000 More Soldiers Approved by Rumsfeld

1/05/04 AFP, Army to Extend Iraq Tours for Thousands of Soldiers

12/29/03 Hockstader, Wa. Post, Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting

Targets/Bases
7/05/03 Schmitt, NYT, THREATS AND RESPONSES: EXPANDING U.S. PRESENCE; PENTAGON SEEKING NEW ACCESS PACTS FOR AFRICA BASES

1/14/04 IraqWar.ru, Rumsfeld exerting pressure on Bush to launch military strike against Syria

11/23/04 Bender, Boston Globe, Shift Begins For Military Overseas Large-Scale Redeployment Around World

1/28/04 SpaceWar, Pentagon readies anti-al-Qaeda offensive inside Pakistan

3/18/03, NewsMax, Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain

1/31/04 Isachenkov, Oakland Tribune, Russia organizing nuke drill

1/28/04 Daily Times/Pakistan, No plan to ‘surround’ Russia militarily: US

Posted by rowan at February 2, 2004 03:57 PM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |