War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'
 

Just to make the debate a little more interesting:

Published on Monday, January 12, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'

Institute's report warns anti-terror campaign may launch 'open-ended and gratuitous conflict.'

by Chuck Neubauer and Ken Silverstein

WASHINGTON ? A report published by the Army War College criticizes the Bush administration's global war on terrorism as "unfocused" and contends that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary" and a "detour" that has diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

The report warns that the administration's global war on terrorism may have set the United States "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

The report by Jeffrey Record, a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, calls for downsizing the war on terrorism and focusing instead on the threat from Al Qaeda, the terror network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as other sites around the world.

"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," Record wrote, concluding his 56-page monograph. "The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."

Record calls the war in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda." The Iraq war was a "detour" from the war on terrorism, he said.

The Army War College, located in Carlisle, Pa., trains military and civilian officials in the theory and application of military strategy using land-based forces. The report contains a disclaimer stating that it does not necessarily represent the views of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

In the foreword to the report, found on the Internet at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pub...g/bounding.pdf , Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., the institute's director, said the monograph was offered "as a contribution to the national security debate over the aims and course of the war on terrorism."

Record, a former staff member for the Senate Armed Services Committee, has written six books on military issues. He also teaches at the Air Force's Air War College in Montgomery, Ala.


Source

Link to the Entire Study

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this report also suggests increasing the size of the "regular" Army -- something Donald Rumsfeld is against.

The Army has been decreased from eighteen Divisions to ten over the past few years, which is one of the reasons for the heavy dependency on Reserve and National Guard formations.

You are correct..... they did in fact advocate an increase to the size of the "regs", but the also pointed out that any increase would take around 2-3 years to completely implement (training, material, and people).

It's won of the age old problems, it's much easier to muster out troops than it is to muster them in.

Canada's military is experiencing the exact problem that this report is concerned about. With the reduction in numbers and budget happening through-out the 90's the current military is stretched to the breaking point meeting all of its commitments.... some friends are on their 7th and 8th tour with the UN or NATO in a peacekeeping role. That wears down the body, morale, and psyche after a while.