Casey: Army ‘Out Of Balance,’ ‘Current Demand’ On Troops ‘Exceeds The Sustainable Supply’
Casey: Army ‘Out Of Balance,’ ‘Current Demand’ On Troops ‘Exceeds The Sustainable Supply’
In testimony before the House Armed Forces Committee yesterday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said that that the Army is “out of balance” due to the war in Iraq and that it cannot respond adequately to another conflict. Casey said that the “current demand” on the military was not “sustainable“:
The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.
Asked by if the military is prepared to meet an unexpected challenge, Casey responded “I am not comfortable. We could not respond as rapidly as we would like to.” Watch it:
According to “Pentagon insiders” who spoke to the Boston Globe, “Casey’s apparent alarm about the Army heightened when he returned from nearly three years of duty in Iraq.” Casey also said that “Army support systems…are straining under the pressures from six years of war.”
Casey is not alone in his assessment. Several current and former Bush administration officials have publicly warned for several months that current troop levels cannot be sustained past next summer due to strain:
Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Pace “is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half” and “is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military.” [8/24/07]
Commanding General Odierno: “We know that the surge of forces will come at least through April at the latest, April of ‘08, and then we’ll have to start to reduce…we know that they will start to reduce in April of ‘08 at the latest.” [8/26/07]
Army Secretary Peter Geren: “[T]he service’s top official, recently said he sees ‘no possibility’ of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.” [8/30/07]
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell: “[T]hey probably can’t keep this up at this level past the middle of next year, I would guess. This is a tremendous burden on our troops.” [7/18/07]
Casey, who was formally the top military commander in Iraq, appears to be hoping his blunt assessment will push the Bush administration to change its military policy. In a “highly unusual move,” Casey requested the public hearing, apparently hoping to attract more attention to the issue of the depleted armed forces.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
42 Responses to “Casey: Army ‘Out Of Balance,’ ‘Current Demand’ On Troops ‘Exceeds The Sustainable Supply’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
General Casey, you should have said something last week while the Webb Amendment was being argued.
-GSD
September 27th, 2007 at 10:52 amI don't think it's going to matter how many top brass state the obvious. This administration seems bound and determined to embark on a long journey with no gas in the tank and no services stations along the highway.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:52 amJoint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace
Commanding General Odierno
Army Secretary Peter Geren
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
Hmmmmm, aren't all these guys, um.....spending more time with their families?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:59 amJoin the Army or Marines - spend 10 of your next 20 years of your career in Mesopotamia!
September 27th, 2007 at 11:00 amSo, we're into year 6 in Afghanistan and year 5 in Iraq and the Administration or the Pentagon hasn't made any serious effort to expand the active duty military? In WWI we went from a tiny peacetime military to putting 1 Million troops in Europe in 18 months.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:01 amThank you Gen. Casey for pointing out the potential of a complete breakdown of our military if we keep allowing the Hawks to beat the war drums.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:03 amTo put even 500,000 troops into Iraq, would require restarting the draft. Something the Republicans don't want to do. A new draft, would end the republican party as we know it. Mostly what Bush wants to do is play for time, until he exits the White House.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:04 amAnd Fox network beating the war drums to attack Iran..and the generals are saying we cannot have another conflict...of course, non of Fox people like Hannit,O'Reilly will be losing anything in any future military conflict.
They are simply selling the Neocons and PNAC project as suggested to them by their boss Rupert Murdoch.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:04 amI feel a DRAFT coming on.
Without it, just how can the Reichwing nut-jobs continue the QUAGMIRE in Iraq? Or carry out their wet-dream, that REAL men go to Tehran?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:11 amHowzit when we are discussing continuing the war that we get generals telling us that they have enough troops to do it but when we discuss mandatory rest periods for the troops or the need for more funding we get generals telling us that we're at the breaking point ?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:25 amIf we have another conflict with Iran in addition to what we have now on hand in Afghanstan and Iraq,and add to that the area of the Persian Gulf that we must protect...it will be a logistical nightmare to cover an area almost third of the size of USA territory.
Of course the Neocons will not quit telling you how successful that will be. Can you imagine the cost of covering such huge operation by our troops.In my judgement a million soldiers will find it difficult to control such an infested area with fighters of all kind,with powerful Iran militarily,with no help from other countries.
America will get deeper and deeper in this quagmire.Of course putting things on paper like Neocons did in their plans' drawing room is easy..reality on the ground is another matter.
Bush should have taken this golden opportunity and talk to the Iranian president who wanted to talk to Bush in his last visit..It might not be politically correct,but realisticly could be the best answer to our case now in Iraq,Afghanstan and in solving our US/ Iranians misunderstandings.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:29 amDRAFT + Busch exercising "his" emergency power = Dictatorship.
∞
September 27th, 2007 at 11:31 amWell, I have been saying all along that if this occupation of Iraq is so important and necessary to our security, then we need a draft. The beauty of this is that a draft would end the occupation sooner than any other action by Congress.
Either way, I am for a draft so at least our troops get the necessary rest and necessary troops to continue their mission until our government can get their head out of their butt and fix this problem.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:32 amAll the generals are lining up, and yet the administration and republicans in congress won't listen.
The army would be better off if they wore plaid shirts.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 amIt would be nice if we had a government that was more concerned with the welfare of our country than the political gains. /dreaming
September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am#17 dancaveman,
you are right..
September 27th, 2007 at 11:49 amI suspect the good General was ordered by his Commander-in-Chief to delay this report until the Webb amendment was kaput. There is a reason you only hear retired or "Ex" generals criticize this Administration. You get to be a General by being a good soldier. Unfortunately, in this case it means keeping your mouth shut when so instructed.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:50 amthank you general casey?!
for what? coming in a week after the webb amendment didn't pass to say, 'oh, by the way, webb is right'...?
sorry, general, but you're a day late and a dollar short. as brandon friedman said over on daily kos today, you lack fortitude and you have failed your fellow soldiers.
if the army breaks, you share in the blame for not speaking up when it could've made a difference.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:10 pmAgreed that the General should have spoke out earlier. But the content of what was said by the current OCSA is not too late. It is now out in the open and supported by the senior most ranking General in the United States Army.
To say it's too late is letting your frustration lead. This is an opportunity for the Dems to use his statement to reintroduce the Webb bill.
The General's timing is piss poor but the statement is now record and shouldn't be swept under the rug.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:28 pmMaybe .... just maybe, Casey is doing what BushCo secretly wants; to show how we are now vulnerable and need either a draft and more money to pay enlistment bounties to keep us safe (and if the Dems oppose, they will be called traitors), OR ........ Darth gets another 250,000 or so SS Corps, er, I mean Blackwater troops to "plug the holes".
September 27th, 2007 at 12:30 pmEntirely possible upside99. Without a big new fear to push us further I don't see how Bush will get more troops. They may want to increase payouts to new recruits but I don't see a new groundswell of new recruits that were holding out for more money.
A draft is the logical choice militarily speaking. It's also political suicide for anyone in congress without the "Clear and Present Danger" cloud. And even then, they will have to be much more convincing than the rush to invade Iraq.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pmStart sending anyone between the ages 18 and 50 that has ever supported the war. I would hate to think that we spent all of that money on e-mail surveillance for nothing.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:44 pmBush-Cheney weak on Defense!
September 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pmwhat they understand, captain mannlicher, is that this idiot president has gotten us into such a foreign policy disaster that it's politically impossible to say now that iraq will be stable in 16 months -- let alone 5 years.
getting out now or at any point previously would have been achievable. not invading in the first place would have been the wisest course of action.
continuing the slow bleed for another 16 months until january 2009 is only leaving our troops open to the inevitable disaster -- whether its the false flag that gets us into war with iran, or the powder keg of sectarian strife that completely erupts in iraq, unleashing a bloodbath.
any reasonable con could probably recognize that.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pmAm really sorry I think for saying this but I have no respect or trust of the top brass in the active military. This men have shown that they would sell thier men and women up the river for another star.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:00 pmhellinabucket...do you trust the dems to really pull out the general casey quote in 3 months when the webb amendment is reintroduced (if it is)?
and what do you think the republicans will do? will they say, 'you know, you've got a point there...' or will they say, 'OLD NEWS, IRRELEVANT, and YOU'RE TWISTING THE GENERAL'S WORDS! QUIT ATTACKING THE ARMED FORCES!"...?
you see these generals will deny that they're politically motivated, but the timing of this is completely political. it's like the friday news dump. when the topic comes up again, it's old news and they'll pull out petraeus again (yes, that poor, poor man who got his feelings hurt by an ad) to say everything's fine, casey's not in iraq, never mind what he says...
he probably wanted to say this a week ago but was told by the administration to wait until after the webb amendent failed so they could call it old news and bury it. this is par for the course.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pmIs the word
D
R
A
F
T
Coming to a vocabulary near you soon??
September 27th, 2007 at 1:20 pmMargaret, Progressives have no one. Anyone who comes close is disregarded and chided by the real king-makers, the media. It's a combination of a right of center Democratic spineless party and the big-biz media that has left this country to ruin. Say what you will about Dean now, but when he was running, he was literally ruined by the media in one day after showing that yell over and over and over and over ad nauseum. WHY?
I know there are more like me who are screaming WHERE IS OUR REPRESENTATION! Who is strong and savvy enough to stand up for real american values.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pmany reasonable con could probably recognize that.
Comment by lonesomerobot — September 27, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
reasonable con = oxymoron
just saying
September 27th, 2007 at 1:46 pmComment by lonesomerobot — September 27, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Trust is something I left along time ago. The General did request for a public hearing which is unusual. I went to the US. Senate website to hunt for when this was scheduled but was unsuccessful.
I don't know if the Generals will openly admit the political side or not. I do know that politics is a big part of the military at that level. I've worked for past OCSA and saw it first hand. I'm not a cheerleader for Gen. Casey but I do believe this is significant.
This probably has filtered thru the military already and will come up again.
"The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
This quote is from the top of the Army. There is no wiggle room to squeeze more out. I believe it is not so much to coincide with Webb's legislation as it is to put a halt to the war drums against Iran.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:48 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 27, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
I will respectfully disagree with your assessment. During the debates last night there wasn't a disagreement with withdrawl of troops. There were differences in the speed and timeframe of withdrawl, but not whether it should be done or not.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pmMakes be proud to be an American to have such an open process. Not too many countries operate like this.
Comment by Cynicon Implant
So Right Wing Loon, it makes you proud that you have a President who fires anyone in the military who disagrees with him? It makes you proud that the only way someone in the military can tell their truthful opinion is to leave the military. All those people who are telling their opinion (which by the way is probably the opinion of all active duty military too), have been fired by Bush or have retired from the military so they can tell the truth. There's nothing in that to be proud of.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:06 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — September 27, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
first, i have to say that none of those so-called "front-runners" speaks for me and i find myself hard-pressed to say i would vote for hillary, especially after her vote on the lieberman-kyl amendment essentially ceding a war declaration against iran.
second, i have to say your reading comprehension skills need a brush-up.
as i said in the first graph of my response to you:
"it’s politically impossible to say now that iraq will be stable in 16 months — let alone 5 years."
the 16 months between now and january 2009 also happens to precede 2013, in case you hadn't worked that out. so any chaos that erupts in iraq or iran over the next 16 months puts a cloud over any proclamation of policy, whether it relates to 2009 or 2013.
all those triangulating candidates are doing is acknowledging the truth: bush has created a huge mess and he's leaving it for his successor to clean up. and no one can say -- 16 months out -- how much worse the mess will be by january 2009.
your weak arguments are veiling your horrible truth -- you support the position of our idiot president: let's keep this quagmire growing and then pass the buck.
what a great leader. and you are a great follower.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHave you considered furthering that thought process and looked at the rationale that has us in this situation. The "serious consequences" for us being in Iraq have vanished but the "serious consequences" have only grown.
This is the legacy of George Bush. An ill thought out invasion and an unwinable situation is what he has laid on our table. With more losses of blood and treasure. All of which could have been avoided and none of the principles have yet to acknowledge as on their shoulders.
The withdrawl will be complicated. It will also be much better thought out than the invasion. The only remaining choice is how many more soldiers will die and how much more of our debt will be created before the realization that it is for the Iraqis to determine their future.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe timing of this hearing is indeed curious. Who scheduled it to be this week rather than say last week? Or was this week when Casey decided that he was available?
In typical MSM fashion the reporter notes "At least one miltary commander now admits the US Army is stretched too thin" yet fails to note the concerns so recently voiced by Pace, Pace's replacement Adm. Mullen, CentCom Adm. William J. Fallon, Odierno, Abizaid, Geren, Powell, etc. This is not a new story. These misgivings first came to our attention 3-4 years ago. Apparently this wasn't worth reporting. At least not until it was painfully obvious that our country had soured on the war and the Dems won the mid-term elections largely through a "Stop the War" platform.
Out of all the top leaders at the Pentagon, it appears that only Army Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock believes that Despite Commitments, U.S. Forces Ready For Any Contingency So many senior officers in disagreement with Sherlock, he is either delusional or is the stooge hand-picked to counter this growing groundswell to cut troop levels.
AF
September 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pmCaptainMantastic --
I appreciate the fact that your posts are not derogatory or resorting to namecalling; however, you say the above comment as though it is fact. What about the retired Generals? What about our NIEs? General Batiste sums up the situation very well in his Op-Ed. Our NIEs, which is compiled information from all of our intelligence agencies do not believe that the "terrorists" will follow us home. How are you so sure you are right and the majority of America and its intelligence agencies are wrong?
Even if you are right and circumstances would "get worse", who cares, the Iraqis want us out. How do you justify occupying a country when the people of that country want us out? We can't fight for their freedom if we aren't going to let them be free and make their own decisions. Not to mention the support and credibility we have lost and continue to lose throughout the world.
If it gets worse, that is the decision of the Iraqis and we may have to deal with that, but justifying a continued occupation (and indirect oppression) of a foreign country is inexcusable. Also, there is no guarantee it won't "get worse" if we stay. Considering we are pissing off more and more Iraqis and other Muslim countries in the area, it isn't much of a stretch to think that more and more people will turn against us the longer this drags on.
Our military needs to rest, refit, and get prepared for the next threat. Next time, our government as well as the American people better not betray (dare I use that word) the trust of our brave men and women in uniform and ensure that there are truthful and valid reasons to use the greatest fighting force in the world.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pmwhen you consider the unintended consequences that would likely transpire from a premature withdrawl, the decision making becomes considerably more complicated.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
first, this all didn't happen in a vacuum. these "unintended consequences" were clearly and flatly ignored by the current administration. furthermore, i am far more likely to support avoiding the "unintended consequences," domestically, of staying in iraq than i am of getting out. we are losing money, breaking our army and most importantly, destroying lives. we are chasing the pipe dream of endless oil when it should be clear to all of us that we should be weaning ourselves off the stuff. we are stirring up the bees nest in the middle east and ignoring what they have said all along: they don't hate us for our freedoms; they hate us because we keep intervening in their affairs. they want us out. that's what this whole thing has been about since before there was an al qaeda to hold up as the faceless enemy we're all supposed to fear.
america isn't going to become a caliphate. not tomorrow, not in ten years, not ever. but what it can become is a despotic regime without civil liberties where the citizenry are watched, terrorized and brow-beaten into fear of this faceless enemy.
if this insanity continues, if we go to war with iran, we will be already too far down the path to turn back without some sectarian strife of our own.
this mess has to end now.
September 27th, 2007 at 2:24 pmI don't want to see the draft reinstated but I do want the question to be asked. It would come into the home of every American if it was reinstated and that would bring the masses out to protest.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:04 pmcriticalthinker; I think you may be right about bringing back the draft. If the kids were faced with that, they'd be in the streets in massive numbers.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI also think a draft would make many occupation supporters (especially those of military age) re-think their position and why they support the occupation. I am all for the draft - for the reasons above, but also, if we insist on continuing this occupation, let all Americans sacrifice, not only the military and their families.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:16 pmI have to agree DanCaveman. We have been force fed a daily diet of fear and the greatest threat to our civilization but there hasn't been a call for a unified shared sacrifice. This is another place where Bush fails.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pmcriticalthinker; I think you may be right about bringing back the draft. If the kids were faced with that, they’d be in the streets in massive numbers.
Comment by Uncle Ho
It would not only bring the kids into the streets, their parents would be right there with them. There are too many parents in this country who are willing to allow other families to lose their children, but not theirs. If they don't want their children to be in the military, in Iraq, they should be marching in the streets to get the other families children home.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm