More of the same, please

The NY Times published an excellent analysis of the problems with a lack of armor on military vehicles. (Not surprisingly, the article is written by a former Army captain.) The writer precisely identifies the problem.

None of these approaches are acceptable. The Army (and to a lesser extent the Marine Corps) must reshape its entire force, front to back, to fight the noncontiguous, nonlinear battles. Every vehicle must have sufficient armor to protect its crew; every convoy must have the right mix of light and heavy weapons to protect itself; every unit must be equipped with night-vision goggles and global positioning systems; every soldier must have the skills and training to fight as an infantryman.

One of our military's great strengths is its ability to learn from its mistakes - when things go wrong for a platoon or company, its soldiers and officers put together reviews to make sure it won't happen again. On the larger scale, that system has broken down: the Pentagon has had more than a decade since the cold war ended - and 20 months since the fall of Baghdad - to identify and fix these problems to protect its support troops. There is no excuse for its failure to do so.

I would be remiss not to point out that it is Secretary Rumsfeld, the much-maligned Rumsfeld, who has been pushing these changes against great resistance from the older military leadership.

Older leaders always fight the last war they fought, but these days battlefield tactics change quickly. The recent battle in Fallujah is a good example of the Marines and Army on the ground adapting to the realities of the situation and changing their tactics to regain the advantage.

The Pentagon needs to adapt as well. Remember the Pentagon was fully prepared to lose 10,000 men in the fight for Baghdad. To them, that was a reasonable loss given the terrain and the enemy. Older "experts" such as Shinseki argued that we would need "several hundred thousand" troops to win the war in Iraq. We didn't. (Whether or not we needed more to maintain security is arguable.)

I've been in the military. I know what a bureacracy it is. I can imagine how difficult it is to make major changes in the way the military does business. I think Rumsfeld deserves praise for his efforts, not criticism, and I think much of the blame for changes not being made more quickly belongs with the military leadership that is slow to change.

Apparently the President agrees.