The following quotation taken from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace press conference at a recent press conference demonstrates conclusively the inherent incompetence of the US high command.
After reporting that the number of effective Iraqi Army fighting formations had fallen from ten to six as a result of the surge, Pace made the following statement to reporters.
Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be "overly concerned" about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field
Military units suffer casualties and lose equipment in training, too. When that happens all hell breaks loose, because it often shows a lack of seriousness and preparation on the part of the commander and men.
Under historic conditions, and in other countries, the loss of men and equipment in combat or in training is a matter of the gravest concern among the military and the civilians alike.
- Advertisement -
We know that there will attrition in combat.
It is a prime objective of the training and procurement cycles to keep up and replace losses.
If they fall behind and losses exceed procurement, it is a clear metric of losing.
Just imagine if the Good General were reporting a 40% degradation of the enemy's forces.
If that were to occur, there would be a huge press party and big wigs from Bush to the Sergeant Major of the Army would be on hand to crow.
Yet our allies forces suffering a 40% loss of forces, the Pentagon puts an Alfred E. Newman spin on the news.
Just to put it in perspective, the Insurgents' fighting capacity is still operating at full intensity while ours is down 40%.
It is hard to conceive that the enemy is capable of inflicting such a high rate of attrition on us while maintaining the intensity of their effort.
They are either gods or something else is going on.
Isn't there anyone in the Pentagon who can figure out what is happening?
Like, maybe that the guys we are training are completing their training, taking their weapons, and going back to the militia or Iraqi army formations they came from and using our training and weapons against us?
Even if the story is one of the straightforward loss of 40% of the trained Iraqi forces, doesn't the US high command recognize that financially, militarily and politically losses of this magnitude are too steep a price for the objectives gained?
What cognizance has Pace shown of the proportionality of losses to gains in his statement?
Will the allied countries be impressed by our ability to absorb staggering losses for no gains?
Will the enemy be intimidated by our toughness in losing people and equipment?
Does Pace even realize that winning the battle entails surviving the battle?
What tactical or strategic military purpose can be served by wasting 40% of our effective forces to gain a stalemate?
Has US National Defense strategy become a suicide pact?
Robert Chapman is greatly interested in developing political awareness among as many people as possible.