Wearing Out the Troops, Bush Administration Style

This is sickening to have to find out on the Thursday afternoon before a long holiday weekend--thanks for the News Dump, there, Pentagon Office of Public Affairs or whatever. These guys are NOT intended for long deployments and this is an ABUSE of the US Marine Corps.

The Pentagon has extended the tour of 2,200 Marines in Afghanistan, after insisting for months the unit would come home on time.

Marine Col. David Lapan confirmed Thursday that the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing combat operations in the volatile south, will stay an extra 30 days and come home in early November rather than October.

Military leaders as recently as Wednesday stressed the need for additional troops in Afghanistan. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly praised the work of the 24th MEU in fighting Taliban militants in Helmand Province.

So, all of this talk about war with Iran--is it a pipe dream? Because there are no troops left. The cupboard is bare and we've exhausted our military.

When Bush leaves office, there won't be a single US combat division--Army, Marines, or Reserve/National Guard component--available for combat at 100% strength. That's the worst shape our military has been in since the start of the Korean War. Even during and after Vietnam, we had divisions sitting in Germany that were ready to fight. And in all of their infinite wisdom, they knew this was going to happen and they're deliberately leaving the next President without ANY military forces available to him. NONE.

It's a disgrace unparalleled in our history. A disgrace.

--WS

When Petulant Children Try Go to War

...it looks like this:

A second American aircraft carrier steamed into the Persian Gulf on Tuesday as the Pentagon ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that the planning is being driven by what one officer called the "increasingly hostile role" Iran is playing in Iraq - smuggling weapons into Iraq for use against American troops.

"What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

These accusations are not new. In fact, our government has been caught overstating them several times. But who exactly is doing the killing? The Badr brigade, trained by Iran, is now integrated into the Iraqi security forces. Does that mean that the government of the country we are trying to prop up is paying Iranian-backed troops to kill us? If so, then the right answer is to stop propping up a government that welcomes Iranian trained militias into their ranks.

U.S. officials are also concerned by Iranian harassment of U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf as well as Iran's still growing nuclear program. New pictures of Iran's uranium enrichment plant show the country's defense minister in the background, as if deliberately mocking a recent finding by U.S. intelligence that Iran had ceased work on a nuclear weapon.

What basis in reality is that? So what if the Iranian defense minister appears in a picture. Is that proof they have an arms program? Or the capability to see one through to fruition? If that is what constitutes proof, then expect our allies to undercut our efforts and mock us behind our backs.

No attacks are imminent and the last thing the Pentagon wants is another war, but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen has warned Iran not to assume the U.S. military can't strike.

"I have reserve capability, in particular our Navy and our Air Force so it would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," Mullen said.

Targets would include everything from the plants where weapons are made to the headquarters of the organization known as the Quds Force which directs operations in Iraq. Later this week Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to confront the Iranians with evidence of their meddling and demand a halt.

If that doesn't produce results, the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum that would tell the Iranians to knock it off - or else.

"Reserve capability?" What in God's name does that add up to? Do we have reserve capability in the Army? Of course we don't--and in any significant attack on Iran, it won't be the Navy and the Air Force that sees the battle up close--it'll be the Army that will have to put boots on the ground the ensure those facilities are destroyed and it'll be the Army in Iraq that has to withstand a wave of Shiite attacks by outraged groups.

And the summation of the childishness and the ridiculousness of this country's foreign policy is contained in the phrase "knock it off or else."

Can you believe that? Can you believe that we would tell another country such a thing? That our position would be a schoolyard taunt between bullies with no maturity?

We're updating the old adage--if you're not embarrassed by your government right now, you're definitely not paying attention.

Oh, I don't like this...I don't like this at all...

They can try to spin this however they want, but however they spin it doesn't matter. It all boils down to politicization of the military, and that way lies a deep and harrowing darkness.

General Petraeus has been summoned back to Washington to head up the Brigadier General's Review Board. I realize that only a few people stopped dead in their tracks at that news - somewhere south of .75% I would guess - Since just under 2% serve in any capacity, .75 is a healthy allowance for career officers, and career officers and their families are just about the only folks out there who even know what the hell a Brigadier's Review Board even is (hell, it's 'teh ungoogleable')...but lets get back on track before I start speaking jargon and tell you about the process by which a clutch of about a thousand Colonels are nominated, and about 40 get stars on their epaulets.

And you have the most political General in modern times heading up the winnowing process.

You damn well know that no Colonel who has opposed or spoken out against the folly of Bush's vanity war is going to be one of the anointed forty.

I saw the WaPo article, and I immediately felt sick to my stomach. I made three phone calls to three different people who over the course of a lifetime will forget a whole hell of a lot more than I'll ever know, even at my peak awareness - and they were all feeling queasy themselves.

Putting the General in charge of combat operations in a country they have long-term occupation plans for in charge of selecting the next crop of Army generals is a signal that they don't ever intend to leave, and to that end, they are setting about staffing the flag ranks with those who will march lockstep with Petraeus.

The spin is "We're innovating!"

So let me take a moment to remind you that the more things change the more they stay the same. And turning a ship the size of the U.S. Army is not a mean feat. I have been saying for three years now that it will take at least two decades to rebuild the Army in the wake of the vandal aWol breaking it, but I have been foolishly optimistic. It's going to take that long to get rid of the influence of the Perfumed Prince.

"I don't want to be here any more."

The happy-talk coming out of aWol's mouth is not cutting it with those who are actually sacrificing and being sacrificed. In fact, they are downright disdainful. last month, in a dining hall at a base south of Baghdad, aWol was speechifyin' on a big-screen teevee and the soldiers didn't even look up from their chicken and mashed potatoes.

"I don't see any progress. Just us getting killed," said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush's speech aired last month. "I don't want to be here anymore."

The frustration and sagging morale is palpable, and it is being expressed in overt statements and in ranting blog posts like this one: "This occupation, this money pit, this smorgasboard of superfluous aggression is getting more hopeless and dismal by the second," a soldier in Diyala province, north of Baghdad, wrote in an Aug. 7 post on his blog, Army of Dude.

The suicide rate in the Army is at the highest level in 23 years. The evidence is even in the latrines. Someone posted the Army's "help cards" listing nine warning signs for suicide in the stalls. One of the cards had seven of the boxes checked. Of the 99 suicides committed by Army personnel last year, 27 of them took place in Iraq. A mental health survey released in May revealed that 45% of the soldiers interviewed ranked morale as low or very low, and only seven percent ranked it as high or very high.

There are two faces to the occupation of Iraq. There is the reality, which the Soldiers and Marines are facing and dealing with daily, and then there is the face that is shown to the public. With support for continuing the occupation of Iraq at about 30% at home, they dare not show the reality, or that remaining support would crumble.

It is depressing and horrifying and I could rant for pages. In fact, I have, as you know full well if you have read this site...so to close, am going to let the soldier/blogger Alex, from Frisco Texas, have the last word:

"The only person I know who believed Iraq was improving was killed by a sniper in May."