Is the USA overstretched?

[Crown]

Janes Reports

On imperial overstretch: can the USA afford to send its troops here, there and everywhere?

The official view from the Pentagon is that all is going well in Iraq and that the US forces are more than ready to continue the global war against terrorism. And yet, as the army commanders and planners in the Pentagon know only too well, this is a mere diplomatic smokescreen. The reality is that US forces are now severely overstretched and the number of their military commitments worldwide is increasing by the day.

The USA remains the biggest military power in the world, but it is beginning to experience the classic symptoms of imperial fatigue.

At first sight, the suggestion that US forces are overstretched appears startling. In the last three years, the US military has successfully removed from power no less than three governments that, for one reason or another, Washington did not like: in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Furthermore, this has been accomplished with a relatively small number of troops and surgical strikes, creating vast destruction to the enemy but leaving US troops more or less unscathed. Even if US reinforcements are now required in Iraq and the country's occupation lasts longer than originally envisaged, the deployment in Southwest Asia will not involve more than a quarter of the USA's total military might.

Seen from this perspective, the USA remains more than capable of holding Iraq down, while confronting North Korea and Iran - its next main targets. Washington's declared policy of being ready to fight two major wars around the world at the same time remains, therefore, intact.

However, this is only part of the story. Twenty-one of the US Army's 33 regular combat brigades are already on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, amounting to roughly 250,000 fighting men and women. And this does not include a substantial number of US troops regularly stationed in Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan, or smaller contingents now scattered around the world. A traditional calculation assumes that for every soldier deployed on an active mission, two more are required to be kept in reserve, either in order to rotate those in action or to prepare for that rotation. Under this assumption, the USA has already reached its limit today. But, to the frustration of the Pentagon, neither US diplomatic priorities nor the sheer pace of international developments appears to take this into account.

The cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq now runs at roughly US$4bn a month and is rising. More importantly for US military planners, it also costs, on average, the life of one US soldier a day. Furthermore, Washington has already decided that it will make no further cuts in its presence in Europe and cannot extricate itself from Afghanistan. Given the North Korean situation, no cuts in US troops can be expected in Asia either, notwithstanding the planned redeployment of US forces inside South Korea. And, to cap it all, Washington is now certain to deploy troops in Liberia.

Officially, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appears unruffled by these developments, yet behind the scenes he is facing an increasingly strident chorus of disapproval from his military commanders.

Crunch time for the administration is still some way off. But a wider political debate about US global military priorities now appears inevitable.

[Sea Skimmer]

The article is very wrong about Yugoslavia, the US didn't remove the government it didn't like there, the nations own people did and Allied Force harmed that effort more then it helped.

I'd say the US is over stretched or very close to it. Regardless troops should leave Korea and leave the former Yugoslavia. That would free up another division in the loop.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think the article confuses the concept of Imperial Overstretch, which is of a long-term economic nature, with the very real threat of strategic military overstretch we're facing at this moment. The two are quite different and happen for different reasons and have different results.

[Crown]

I think the article confuses the concept of Imperial Overstretch, which is of a long-term economic nature, with the very real threat of strategic military overstretch we're facing at this moment. The two are quite different and happen for different reasons and have different results.

*shrug*

I think they are using the two terms interchangably, however it's clear that the article is focusing on the military aspect with the disagreement brewing between the military and the politicians who from past history occurances have shown a somewhat deplorable lack of understanding in what exactly is required in a war.

[Joe]

It's kind of hard to get imperial overstretch when you're not imperial. But we are overstretched, which is why we don't need to keep troops in Europe or the Far East anymore.