The Reaper
07-29-2004, 12:22
New York Post
July 28, 2004
One Superb Army
By Ralph Peters
IF our Army is mentioned at all during the Democrats' Boston brie party, it will either be a perfunctory nod to our troops — essential in an election year, but only then — or a complaint that the current administration is "breaking" our military.
Although it's a hopeless effort in an election year, let's look at the facts.
Is the U.S. Army overstretched? Yes.
Is it too small? Yes.
Is it approaching some ominous breaking point? Absolutely not.
We entered the war to liberate Iraq with the world's finest ground forces. Since then, they've gotten better.
To be fair to the Dems, the press coverage of Iraq has been even more misleading than the political rhetoric. Sensational media accounts make it sound as though no soldier will ever re-enlist again, as if mutiny's just around the corner.
In fact, re-enlistment rates in the active-duty Army and the reserve components have risen dramatically. Re-up rates are especially high in units that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Our vets are proud, not embittered. And all of the Army's components are meeting or exceeding new-recruit targets, except for a slight lag in the National Guard — a gap recruiters expect to make up in the coming months.
That National Guard has truly proved its worth. And we not only possess the most experienced active-duty military in the world, we now have an unprecedented situation in which half of our National Guard is made up of combat veterans. It's a huge advantage.
A few months ago, an Army general with service in Iraq as well as extensive NATO experience remarked to me, "Think of the weakest National Guard unit you saw in your career — they're light years ahead of the best the [continental] Europeans have got."
No one can match us. And, thanks to our demonstrated power, few are likely to try.
In any unit, you can wave a mike and lure a complainer or two from the back of the tent. But the hard, cold numbers don't lie. For all the undeniable hardships they've endured, our soldiers recognize the value of what they've done — and continue to do.
Another major tribute to the quality of our Army is that, although there have been innumerable tactical and practical "lessons learned" since 9/11, our training and doctrine were so well-designed that there were no great battlefield shocks. We were remarkably well-prepared.
Yes, there are painful costs. No soldier would think of denying it. Every casualty matters. But, despite the dangers and frustrations, our soldiers aren't quitting. Story after story emerges of wounded soldiers doing all they can to return to their units.
That doesn't sound like a demoralized military to me.
The Army's vehicle fleet is certainly suffering — combat operations and the conditions in Iraq are taking a heavy toll. But the maintenance system has done a first-rate job of rebuilding worn-out or damaged vehicles — over 12,000 major refurbishments to date. This isn't Sgt. Bilko's Army anymore. Taxpayers get their money's worth.
Meanwhile, in the midst of waging the global War on Terror, the Army not only continues to reorganize to meet the demands of the emerging strategic environment — it has increased the pace of innovation.
From a program to almost double the available number of combat brigades without drastically increasing personnel strength, to a restructuring that will make combat formations deadlier, swifter and more self-sustaining, this wartime Army's driving ahead with the most far-reaching reforms in half a century.
Nor did past initiatives fail to pay off. From a renewed concentration on urban-warfare training back in the '90s (a trend pioneered by the Marine Corps, to give credit where it's due), to the controversial struggle to field Stryker brigades — units built around agile, wheeled armored vehicles — the Army got the future amazingly right.
The Stryker — which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and a legion of lobbyists tried to kill — has proven to be our most effective and survivable vehicle in Iraq. Embarrassing its critics, the much-maligned Stryker has done a better job of keeping our soldiers alive than the more heavily armored Abrams tanks or Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
Despite all these reasons for pride (about which we hear so little from the press), complaints never cease that the War on Terror hasn't been won already, that Iraq didn't turn into Iowa overnight and that our enemies are still attacking our troops and our allies.
It's absurd to expect instant results in this mighty struggle. The terrorists began this war three decades ago. We didn't even notice until 9/11. It shouldn't surprise us that, with a 30-year head start, our enemies have put down roots and built up their base. We weren't even in the game. Conditioned to think in terms of yesterday's threats, our leaders from both parties looked away. We pretended we were at peace, no matter the growing evidence to the contrary.
We're paying the price for a generation of wishful thinking. Were it not for the skills and selfless dedication of our armed forces, that price would be vastly higher.
Just the fact that our enemies have not been able to drive us out of Iraq, that we've stood firm in the face of the worst the terrorists could deliver, is far more important than most Americans realize. Osama bin Laden bragged that we were weak and cowardly, that we couldn't bear casualties, that, once our blood was drawn, we'd run away.
We had to overcome the legacy of past miscalculations and foolish retreats. And we did. Our enemies won't underestimate us again.
Today, most of the attacks in Iraq are directed against locals or third-party nationals. Our enemies realize that they can't defeat or dislodge us. And they suffer lopsided casualties whenever they try to fight us.
Faced with one of the toughest military challenges — counter-insurgency operations in an alien culture — our soldiers (and Marines) have turned in a remarkable performance. The duration of this great struggle may frustrate those with sit-com attention spans, but we're winning.
You won't hear that in Baghdad-on-the-Charles.
Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
July 28, 2004
One Superb Army
By Ralph Peters
IF our Army is mentioned at all during the Democrats' Boston brie party, it will either be a perfunctory nod to our troops — essential in an election year, but only then — or a complaint that the current administration is "breaking" our military.
Although it's a hopeless effort in an election year, let's look at the facts.
Is the U.S. Army overstretched? Yes.
Is it too small? Yes.
Is it approaching some ominous breaking point? Absolutely not.
We entered the war to liberate Iraq with the world's finest ground forces. Since then, they've gotten better.
To be fair to the Dems, the press coverage of Iraq has been even more misleading than the political rhetoric. Sensational media accounts make it sound as though no soldier will ever re-enlist again, as if mutiny's just around the corner.
In fact, re-enlistment rates in the active-duty Army and the reserve components have risen dramatically. Re-up rates are especially high in units that have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Our vets are proud, not embittered. And all of the Army's components are meeting or exceeding new-recruit targets, except for a slight lag in the National Guard — a gap recruiters expect to make up in the coming months.
That National Guard has truly proved its worth. And we not only possess the most experienced active-duty military in the world, we now have an unprecedented situation in which half of our National Guard is made up of combat veterans. It's a huge advantage.
A few months ago, an Army general with service in Iraq as well as extensive NATO experience remarked to me, "Think of the weakest National Guard unit you saw in your career — they're light years ahead of the best the [continental] Europeans have got."
No one can match us. And, thanks to our demonstrated power, few are likely to try.
In any unit, you can wave a mike and lure a complainer or two from the back of the tent. But the hard, cold numbers don't lie. For all the undeniable hardships they've endured, our soldiers recognize the value of what they've done — and continue to do.
Another major tribute to the quality of our Army is that, although there have been innumerable tactical and practical "lessons learned" since 9/11, our training and doctrine were so well-designed that there were no great battlefield shocks. We were remarkably well-prepared.
Yes, there are painful costs. No soldier would think of denying it. Every casualty matters. But, despite the dangers and frustrations, our soldiers aren't quitting. Story after story emerges of wounded soldiers doing all they can to return to their units.
That doesn't sound like a demoralized military to me.
The Army's vehicle fleet is certainly suffering — combat operations and the conditions in Iraq are taking a heavy toll. But the maintenance system has done a first-rate job of rebuilding worn-out or damaged vehicles — over 12,000 major refurbishments to date. This isn't Sgt. Bilko's Army anymore. Taxpayers get their money's worth.
Meanwhile, in the midst of waging the global War on Terror, the Army not only continues to reorganize to meet the demands of the emerging strategic environment — it has increased the pace of innovation.
From a program to almost double the available number of combat brigades without drastically increasing personnel strength, to a restructuring that will make combat formations deadlier, swifter and more self-sustaining, this wartime Army's driving ahead with the most far-reaching reforms in half a century.
Nor did past initiatives fail to pay off. From a renewed concentration on urban-warfare training back in the '90s (a trend pioneered by the Marine Corps, to give credit where it's due), to the controversial struggle to field Stryker brigades — units built around agile, wheeled armored vehicles — the Army got the future amazingly right.
The Stryker — which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and a legion of lobbyists tried to kill — has proven to be our most effective and survivable vehicle in Iraq. Embarrassing its critics, the much-maligned Stryker has done a better job of keeping our soldiers alive than the more heavily armored Abrams tanks or Bradley infantry fighting vehicles.
Despite all these reasons for pride (about which we hear so little from the press), complaints never cease that the War on Terror hasn't been won already, that Iraq didn't turn into Iowa overnight and that our enemies are still attacking our troops and our allies.
It's absurd to expect instant results in this mighty struggle. The terrorists began this war three decades ago. We didn't even notice until 9/11. It shouldn't surprise us that, with a 30-year head start, our enemies have put down roots and built up their base. We weren't even in the game. Conditioned to think in terms of yesterday's threats, our leaders from both parties looked away. We pretended we were at peace, no matter the growing evidence to the contrary.
We're paying the price for a generation of wishful thinking. Were it not for the skills and selfless dedication of our armed forces, that price would be vastly higher.
Just the fact that our enemies have not been able to drive us out of Iraq, that we've stood firm in the face of the worst the terrorists could deliver, is far more important than most Americans realize. Osama bin Laden bragged that we were weak and cowardly, that we couldn't bear casualties, that, once our blood was drawn, we'd run away.
We had to overcome the legacy of past miscalculations and foolish retreats. And we did. Our enemies won't underestimate us again.
Today, most of the attacks in Iraq are directed against locals or third-party nationals. Our enemies realize that they can't defeat or dislodge us. And they suffer lopsided casualties whenever they try to fight us.
Faced with one of the toughest military challenges — counter-insurgency operations in an alien culture — our soldiers (and Marines) have turned in a remarkable performance. The duration of this great struggle may frustrate those with sit-com attention spans, but we're winning.
You won't hear that in Baghdad-on-the-Charles.
Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."