Our military in Iraq worries that we might pull out our forces too fast and undermine what we've gained so far:
Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day military commander in Iraq, said he was worried that significant improvements in security conditions would sway policymakers to move too quickly to pull out troops next year.
"The most important thing to me is we cannot lose what we have gained," Odierno said in an interview last week with The Times after he toured Nahrawan, a predominantly Shiite city of about 100,000 northeast of Baghdad with a market that is now showing signs of life. "We won't do that."
Some Pentagon officials believe a cut from 166,000 troops in Iraq to about 100,000 or fewer is necessary to relieve strain on the Army worldwide. Other military officials contend that a smaller force here would make the issue of the Iraq war less urgent, and that the next administration could therefore be less likely to force a withdrawal of all remaining troops.
I have sympathy for the view that we might need to take risks to maintain support long enough to win. I felt that way early in the year. But the surge has had enough success that I think we've slowed the Washington clock enough not to worry about losing support to finish the mission on the timetable that our military in Iraq wants.
What I don't have sympathy for is the quest by those in the Army responsible for generating troops to risk our victory so their job is easier. Those generating the force should have no say at all in how our Army is used to fight the war. The Army is a tool to accomplish the missions that our nation gives it. If we must break the Army to win the war, that is the price we must pay. Period. I've said this again and again. Goldfarb agrees:
Clearly different commanders have different concerns. In Iraq, the concern is winning the war, back here in Washington, commanders at the Pentagon must worry about readiness and maintaining the capacity of the Army and Marine Corps for any potential conflict. Such concerns need to be taken into account, but as a matter of priorities, it seems foolish to put the stress on the Army and Marine Corps ahead of achieving security, and victory, in Iraq.
Those whose job it is to generate Army forces must be told what they need to do to support what the people in the field say they need to win. Those generating the force must spare no effort to get the job done.
If those back here can't do that, they must tell the civilians who provide the resources what they need to get the job done. They have no business at all telling anybody what the military can use to win the war.
