Assessment of military capabilities from someone who should know

In A follow-up on my Minuteman post regarding Homeland Security, I responsed to ol' George's claim that "we're fightin' the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" by saying

See, since we have almost all of military tied up in Iraq, and since we have spent and continue to spend billions upon billions of dollars because of Iraq, it's not so much a case of us not having to fight any terrorists here as not being able to do so.

And in Venezuela is still vexing, I argued that we are in no position to do what we did to the Taliban to Chavez:

There's just one small problem with that plan. Since almost all of our military is still tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, we don't have the ability to do that--and that is not going to change any time soon.

But what the hell do I know? After all, I'm just a smart-ass freedom-hater, right?

Well, perhaps an assessment from someone who should know about such matters would lend credence to my "crazy talk." Specifically, perhaps some statements from Gen. Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might make a difference. As reported by the AP, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even Fox News, Gen. Myers presented a report to Congress on Monday, the Chairman's Risk Assessment. Of the sources listed in the previous sentence, only the New York Times obtained a copy of the actual report. Thus, I will quote primarily the New York Times article.

The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.

The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*******

General Myers cited reduced stockpiles of precision weapons, which were depleted during the invasion of Iraq, and the stress on reserve units, which fulfill the bulk of combat support duties in Iraq, as among the factors that would limit the Pentagon's ability to prevail as quickly as war planners once predicted in other potential conflicts.

The report this year acknowledges that the nation's armed forces are operating under a higher level of risk than cited in the report last year, said Pentagon and military officials who have read both documents.

*******

In the report, General Myers wrote, the military faces "moderate" risk in its mission to protect the United States, and he assessed the risk for preventing conflict - including surprise attack - as "moderate, but trending toward significant."

Though the general wrote that the military forces "will succeed in any" major combat operation, he added that "they may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision as detailed in our current plans."

The annual "Chairman's Risk Assessment," which is required by Congress, warned that additional major combat operations "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage."

The classified assessment is a formal acknowledgment by General Myers, who serves as the senior military adviser to both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, of a series of strains: those placed on military personnel by large and lengthy overseas deployments; those placed on weapons and vehicles by wear and tear; and those placed on war planners trying to counter potential adversaries even though forces previously committed to such places as South Korea are now engaged elsewhere.

This seems like statements from the Department of the Bloody Obvious, a perception verified by an official who spoke to the Washington Post:

A senior military official said, for example, that it is obvious that if another conflict arises while the United States does battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and fights the global war on terrorism, it would not be as easily accomplished as if the other three conflicts did not exist.

"It wouldn't be as pretty," the official said.

Still the report and reaction from military officials were not all gloom and doom. According to the AP, "Myers predicted the risk would go down in a year or two." Also, as the Washington Post noted, the officials who spoke to reporters

wanted to emphasize that the heightened risk does not indicate vulnerability on the part of U.S. forces and that it should not be read by other nations as an opportunity to attack. The officials said the United States would win any projected conflict across the globe, but the path to victory could be more complicated.

"There is no doubt of what the outcome is going to be," a top defense official said.

Myers expressed similar sentiments in his report, according to the New York Times:

Despite the limitations, General Myers was unwavering in his assessment that American forces would win any major combat operation. The armed forces, he concluded, are "fully capable" of meeting all Washington's military objectives.

*******

In an upbeat final paragraph, General Myers told Congress that the armed forces "remain the most professional, best trained, and best equipped military in the world.

"Our ability to project power, anywhere in the world, remains second to none," he added. "The dedication, commitment, and sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces ensure success in every challenge."

At this point, I cannot dispute these statements by Gen. Myers (in part because no one knows what "Washington's military objectives" are right now). However, these statements do not controvert my basic point--that we do not have the capability to undertake any additional major combat operations. For instance, we do not have resources to start a war with Venezuela--unless we take significant amounts of troops and equipment out of Iraq and Afghanistan (which could have dire consequences). That such resources would be necessary are made more evident by the fact that Chavez now has control over the military, included the new force that was just created (see the previous post). And, as I will eventually explain, we will not be able to get Venezuela's neighbors to support any military action against Venezuela. And this same analysis applies to Syria and Iran. It follows that a threat to use major military force is not really a credible threat, and that means there is not just a whole lot we can do about Venezuela, Syria, or Iran in terms of using our military. And I have not even included North Korea! That means the administration of our Fearless Leader will have to rely heavily on diplomacy, and that is pretty much, as the Republicans like to say, a non-starter with this bunch.