Stardate 20030904.1844

(On Screen): Is Bush going soft? Has he thrown in the towel at the UN? Is he going to give away the game diplomatically, and throw away all we've gained in the last two years? Certainly when word leaked out that the administration planned to go back to the UN for another authorization, there seemed to be a lot of concern and/or hope in that regard, as a function of the political alignment of whichever commentator discussed the issue.

Now more facts have come out. After a fair amount of behind-the-scenes negotiation, the US has actually submitted a proposal to the UNSC. Absent any other way to judge it, it seems to me that if Chirac and Schröder hate it, then it can't be all bad.

The Army is stretched to the limit. The problem is coming up with relief for units which have been there for a long time and need to come home, and in the next few months we're going to have to come up with about three divisions worth.

We could do that easily if we were willing to kiss off Korea entirely, and decide that any war there wasn't our problem. A lot of the Army is being kept in reserve in case any ground action happens there, and given the state of diplomacy and negotiations going on right now, this would be exactly the wrong time to do anything which seemed to weaken our capability to operate militarily in that theater.

But in the longer term, there's an even greater danger. We have the world's best military, right now. Will we still have in five years? The kind of force we have, which can operate at the level of effectiveness it does using the kind of tactics it uses, is only possible with volunteers who are capable and highly trained. That kind of military can't be created out of draftees, and it relies heavily on a substantial core of careerists, especially mid and high level noncomms. They follow orders, of course, and go where they're told and do what they're told, but when their term of enlistment runs out, how many of them will re-up? If too many decide they've had enough, and don't reenlist, we could face severe degradation. Too much experience and training will walk into the civilian economy, never to return, and it won't be easy to replace.

That applies to everyone at all levels, but it's particularly bad when it comes to certain kinds of specialties. There are military jobs in which competence only comes after many years. There are cases where core teams have to form and can only operate well as a team. For example, this is the case in jobs such as civilian affairs or certain kinds of intelligence, and those people are even more stretched right now than the rest of the Army.

The Marines are somewhat less involved and less at risk from this, and the USAF and USN even less still. But we need all four services, and if we use the Army too abusively now, we risk using it up and not having it any longer. It took 20 years to build the Army we have today; we could unbuild it again in a far shorter time.

There are a lot of advantages to an all-volunteer force. Volunteers make more of a commitment; they're more dedicated. They accept longer periods of enlistment than would ever be possible for conscripts on a routine basis, and because of that the Army can better justify investing in more training for them. But there are certain disadvantages, too, and this is the biggest one: volunteers don't have to volunteer. Those in the service don't have to re-up, and those who are considering volunteering may be dissuaded from doing so. You can't abuse volunteers the way many nations have abused their conscript armies.

So the administration has been trying to find other nations willing to contribute troops to help with the situation in Iraq, and so far has not been very successful. It's a disappointment, and I think it's going to have repercussions later, but that doesn't solve the short term problem.

One common response has been that a given nation might be willing to contribute forces if the operation were authorized by the UN and seen to be under its auspices, but can't really do so for what is perceived as an American operation.

I think they divide into two groups. One group needs a UN blessing for political reasons. If they send their troops into a situation where some of them might die, then politically the leaders of such nations need the cover of UN approval. (I think that India is one of these nations.)

The other group has more fundamental objections. What these nations really want is for the US to surrender control of the situation. (France, of course, but a lot of other nations as well.)

There's actually a third group: those who have been offered bribes by the members of the other groups to diplomatically support the anti-American coalition. (For instance, Turkey.)

Strictly speaking, the UN has already given authorization. There was a resolution passed after the war which recognized the occupation, but it didn't formally make the occupation force a "UN force" as such.

So that's what the administration seems to be trying to change. According to the AP, here's the essence of the new proposal:

The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, would transform the U.S.-led military force in Iraq into a U.N.-authorized multinational force under a unified command. Powell said Wednesday that an American w