This article trumpets the fact that American casualties have increasingly been reservists, up from the lower levels of the invasion and first rotation. The article says:
The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September — the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.
At least the article provides some context to explain this heralded fact:
At present, of the approximately 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about half are reservists: 49,000 Army National Guard, 22,000 Army Reserve and 4,000 Marine Reserve, according to figures provided by those organizations.
So half of our troops in Iraq are reservists? Might explain the higher casualties, eh?
And of course, the article hints at the structure of our military--the Abrams Doctrine--which requires use of the reserves for any large or lengthy war:
Since the Vietnam era, the military has given the Guard and Reserve more vital support functions like military police and engineers, so that any major conflict would involve more than just the active-duty force. Thus it was inevitable that a sizable portion of the force in Iraq would be Guard and Reserve; what has made the Iraq experience so different is the large numbers of reservists getting killed and wounded.
And keep in mind that we have large numbers of reserve combat formations in Iraq in order to allow the regular active component to reorganize into the new brigade combat teams:
Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve in 2005 was deliberately planned to allow active-duty units like the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division to complete a reorganization before they returned to Iraq.
So before you think that you know what the real story of this article is, consider that we have lots of reservists in Iraq so it is natural that reservist casualties are higher now. And remember that reliance on the reserves is a feature--not a bug--designed to make sure that draftees aren't sent to war without reminding the public that we are at war. Reservists being called up make sure that the public cannot just let the nation go to war without feeling the pain of pulling productive people out of our society. War is not undertaken lightly under these circumstances.
And remember that the military is putting a higher burden on the reserves in order to reorganize the active component. This factor will disappear after this year and reserve casualties will go down as the active component takes the lead again. This would happen even if we are not able to draw down our forces as Iraqis take the lead.
But his focus on body counts misses the real story.
Our reserves have taken the lead in our major theater of war and have led our military effort during a very difficult year. And the result is that we are closer to victory. What other country could have placed the responsibility for its central front in the hands of reservists and achieved such results?
Our reservists are not victims. They are our military reserves and we have planned to use them in war. And they have fought with skill and brought great honor to their communities. The active component beat Saddam; and the reserves beat back the insurgents and terrorists, buying time for the Iraqis to assume the lead role.
We can be proud of our soldiers and Marines--active and reserve--who have brought us to the verge of total victory in Iraq.
We must not let them down by retreating even as we win this fight.
