From an article citing a report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based defense policy research group:



Full Article Here

This study was put together by a respected analyst and retired military officer, Andrew Krepinevich. Also, a privately funded study by Democrats that included the work of fmr. NATO supreme commander Wes Clark, fmr. National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, as well as fmr. Secretary of Defense William Perry is mentioned in the article and similarly concludes that the military is overextended.

Without a doubt in my mind, our nation's is the greatest and most powerful military in the world and I would never even call that into question. I'm inclined to believe, however, that the massive presence we're going to have to keep in Iraq to ensure stability for the foreseeable future is going to have a great impact on our ability to deal with other threats, like Iran for example.

I seek to debate the following:

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?

2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?


*Related Material:

-CNN Article

-DoD Press Conference with Donald Rumsfeld

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?
Yes unless we need to face a number of new "rogue nations" in the near future. Rumsfeld said we are NOT overextended and I believe him. The requirement for troops in Iraq is about to decrease and will continue to do so over the next 2-3 years at least.



2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?

Train the Iraqi military and police and turn this responsibility over to them. Certainly a free and prosperous Iraq will have the will and resources to deal with these foreign fighters. We need to stay until the Iraqi forces are capable of taking over. Air and satellite intel may be the last assets of the US required.

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?

I think the ability to deal with "rogue" nations is understated. We certainly have capabilities, despite Iraq. It is simply a matter of priorities.

For example, should something drastic happen, we have 140,000 troops (in Iraq) ready for deployment. Of course, that would make Iraq a failure and would not be undertaken lightly. However, it could be done if another threat was grave enough.

Also, not long ago (in 2000, actually) the Pentagon's basic concept was the MTW (multiple theatres of war) doctrine where it maintained enough forces to conduct two simultaneous large scale conflicts. The military has been transforming since then (under Rumsfeld) but it seems that they could go back to the MTW doctrine fairly easily.

2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?

Interestingly, Andrew Krepinevich has already addressed this in another publication How to Win in Iraq. He views Iraq as three distinct "centers of gravity":



I agree with Mr. Krepinevich: we should focus more on providing security for Iraqis and less on killing insurgents. Start small and expand outward. It may be riskier (in terms of casualties) in the short term, but it has much more chance of success in the long term.

EDIT to add: keep in mind that the US still has approximately 110,000 troops in Europe (75,000 in Germany and over 10,000 in the UK), 82,000 troops in East Asia (40,000 in each Japan and South Korea), and over 900,000 personnel in the US. These are not all front line troops, of course, but the US does have resources.

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?
No we can't. Gradually reducing troops in Iraq is really an effort by the Bush administration to save face. With the stop loss orders and the back-to-back deployments that many soldiers had to face in Iraq, I'm surprised that anyone can believe that the military is not overextended already. Furthermore, 2 or 3 years is not enough time to fully train a new army from scratch.

Of course, we could close bases but then America would have to shorten its "rogue nation" list.

2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?
Simple. America would have to do a military draft to provide relief for the existing ground forces. But the military has good reasons for not wanting a draft. So we might have to give up the notion that we can control what goes on in another country.

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?

This question presupposes that Iraq is stable. I don't think it is.

2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?

At some point the Iraqis are going to have to decide for themselves, without having U.S. military guarding polling places, who they want for their leaders. It might end up the way it did with the Palestinians voting for Hamas to be the party in control. And if it does end up that way, who are we to say that it is wrong if it can be demonstrated that it was the will of the Iraqi people? Self-determination carries with it the capability of the Iraqi people making decisions we may not like.

I heard the reports too, and the crux of the message of the thin green line, with the news that last year the army missed its recruitment goal by 6,600. I am afraid that we are going to end up instituting the draft once again.

The troops throughout Europe and Asia are also tasked with deployments from those locations. In other words, though 110,000 troops might be stationed in Europe, and that is where their families reside, it isn't necessary where their boots are on the ground. The deployment rates from Germany back in the late 1990s for pilots were about 8 months away (usually somewhere in the desert) per year.

I do think there is a serious problem, particularly with certain skill sets. Highly skilled people (or highly intelligent, trainable people) who are willing to sign on for a commitment in which they will have little or no autonomy, that will require several years of their lives away from their families, living in one of the world's many armpits, and being in constant danger are unsurprisingly hard to come by. Amlord mentioned that up until 2000 our military practiced the "two war doctrine". That is a ruse. The two war doctrine ended shortly after the cold war, though unofficially. Consider that to fight the tiny war in Kosovo we initiated a stop-loss and activated the reserves. That was in 1998.

This is not the case. The capacity to fight two large scale wars ended even before the Cold War did, and certainly did not survive the fall of the Eastern Bloc. The official doctrine of 'two-war' has remained on the books, but the actual capacity to manage this has long been missing. Rumsfled himself declared in 2000 that the idea of the 'two-war doctrine' was a practical impossibility.

At the moment the United States cannot meet its operationa needs in Iraq. Already military forces around the world have been reduced and stop-loss orders are in effect. The only kind of war the US could wage in Iraq would be a reduced version of the Serbian war, conducted entirely rom the air. However the air force is reduced strength due to operational commitments, and Iran is both better defended, lesss well known and MUCH larger than Serbia was, making this a difficult prospect. Not to mention that Iran is highly unlikely to surrender simply in the face of an air war.



These are not troops at all. The US may have 900,000 Armed Forces personel in the US, but that is almost entirely made up of support staff and administration. In terms of combat troops, the well is getting pretty dry...

The US is wholly unable to maintain the extended rotations which is the current policy. Numbers dictate that. That said, it's fair to say the US intends to open up new fronts in its fabled war on terror. So where does that leave Americans? It leaves them at the mercy of current world events.
A future 'terrorist' attack on America, a false-flag attack, will set the wheels in motion for conscription. In itself, an attack on or by Iran will not do it. Contrary to Western public opinion, Iran has no hostile offensive plans prepared. At the moment, they know that's complete suicide for their nation. Nor would an attack on North Korea (the safest nation in the world, safe from an attack by the US). The attack must and will be bitter and painful, and that parameter leads directly to innocent civilians dying in American streets.
Scenarios to US conscription
1. Attack on South Korea by North Korea. Please note that this scenario depends on nuclear motives. A conventional attack on South Korea would not make Americans wholly submit to a complete martial military society, but an offensive use of nukes certainly would.
2. The US is going to be hit with an insane attack which will destroy Americans' will to remain (loose term) 'free' and 'democratic'. Of course Al-Queda will be blamed, but that in itself is evidence of a flase-flag operation. *To subdue old-style nostalgic Americans who love real democracy and freedoms, violent American street gangs and their leaders will be elevated to lieutenants of Al-Queda, and that, people, will make Americans support the defensive offence being planned as we speak (type).
3. The coming false-flag attack will take place, I trust, in the southern US (not likely), or the Eastern US coast (almost definite). The southern and western United States contain, and this may sound racist but since it's in reference to American society as a whole it's acceptable, a high proportion of immigrants and what we could call dark people. The New Orleans sacrifice is a perfect example of the American racist society and the indifference heaped upon the minority class. Therefore, this future attack must be at the heart of American society therefore it must take place in an area which is no-question-full-100%-American or at least a symbol of American power i.e. Wall Street, Washington D.C. etc...

More to come....

I think I understand what your trying to say, but the sentiment is erroneous for the most part. There is truth to the old adage about military forces that the tail is bigger than the tooth, and it holds true today. But to imply that the Army in the US or elsewhere throughout the world for that matter is almost entirely made up of support staff and administration, is false.
First to speak about the military today and whether or not it is overextended requires a knowledge somewhat more advanced than what was true in WWII or Hollywood.
Since the Army is the largest and perhaps the most visible service, and the branch that is the subject of overextension, I will break down the current situation and status as I see it.
People have to get past the older mindset that there are 'combat troops' and 'non-combat troops'. In this day and age that simply isn't the case. Sure, there are Dental and Medical soldiers, some rear echelon staff people and technical jobs that will likely never see a shot fired in anger. But the vast majority of soldiers are susceptible and trained to operate in a combat environment. Soldiers in the Army are broken by by job description and unit into three subsets: Combat Arms, Combat Support and Combat Service Support. The last subset contains the soldiers that may not as readily be inserted into a combat environment.
The main reason however, for the overextension of the Army, is the current transformation into modular Brigade Combat Teams.
This transformation, started around 1999, is a much needed step to transform the Army into a more mobile and lighter force. The war on terror and the war in Iraq have stretched our forces thin, but not fatally so. The ongoing re-structuring will bring about a vast improvement in how we fight, so I see this time of crisis as temporary in nature. I currently serve in one of those modular brigades, and I can tell you first hand that we are not experiencing an overextension here in terms of manpower, equipment or funding.
There's always going to be speculation about how can we wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan.....not to mention low level actions in Yemen, Philippines, Djibouti, etc.......but I don't put much stock into speculation until I see some evidence that another crisis is imminent.
To the larger question, can we continue to support the rotation schedule as it now stands. Personally, I believe that our troop levels will continue to decrease, thus lightening the burden on deploying units. Additionally, as the transformation drives toward completion, the current fences will be lifted. Fences pertain to soldiers who are denied the opportunity to change duty stations and MOS'S (jobs). Concurrently, the need for any Stop-Loss will diminish. The above reasons for a fence insures that we deploy combat capable and fully manned units. Try and imagine the chaos if we didn't take those measures. They present a hardship, and not one I look at lightly, but maintaining a professional military service does require some measure of sacrifice.
Most of the doom and gloom rhetoric that I hear or read about doesn't seem to translate to everyday life, in my opinion. The outlook by the pundits and that of the boys with boots on the ground seem to be divergent.


I don't necessarily agree with that assertion, but perhaps you could share your numbers with us. I have read several studies concerning this topic, as it is near and dear to my heart. And most of them spin a different tale, depending on what numbers are used. Your assertion seems heavily politically laced, so I'm curious to see the hard facts you use to come to this conclusion.

Trust me when I say I'm not political and believe in only the truth and what's right. Certainly if those characteristics are your definition of a 'democrat' or 'left-wing' or 'commie' and whatnot, then fine I accept that label in relation to you and you only.
You're right about numbers being manipulated to suit agendas so I'll instead look at the generalized aspects. These are opinion.
The high US casualty rate in Iraq, dead and wounded.
The near-definite fact that the US will soon be embarking on another (unneeded in our real world) military venture, we all know where.
The low recruitment numbers.
The stop-loss order imposed by the Pentagon.
The recalling of former military-men as old as 60.
The loosening of parameters concerning whom the military appeals to.
An army not over-extended generally (typically) does not have the above mentioned characteristics or problems.

I don't recal labeling you one way or the other, nor was any partisan attack made. I simply pointed out that several accusations were leveled at the U.S. and the military, and without supporting data. If you are truly concerned with what is truth and right, then you also know that your post was generally opinion driven, and opinions are relative to a political slant and bias. I just asked to see your burden of proof.

As to your numbers, opinion driven as you admit:

The high US casualty rate in Iraq, dead and wounded. One servicemember killed or wounded is too many, when speaking emotionally. But the numbers cited since Sep. 11th are actually quite low when taking into consideration the scope and longevity of combat operations.

The near-definite fact that the US will soon be embarking on another (unneeded in our real world) military venture, we all know where. No Nostradamus, WE don't know where. If I had a dollar for every time I thought I was about to be inserted into a combat situation.....well, let's just say I'd have some more walking around cash. Pure speculation in other words.

The low recruitment numbers. Sure, they've dipped. And no wonder. But you conveniently left out the high retention rates for units who have deployed and will again. That means the very soldiers that have experienced combat are knowingly putting themselves back into that situation.

The stop-loss order imposed by the Pentagon. True, and discussed Here

The recalling of former military-men as old as 60. Not a fan of the plan.

The loosening of parameters concerning whom the military appeals to. I don't understand this statement.

An army not over-extended generally (typically) does not have the above mentioned characteristics or problems. You may be right, you may be wrong. I simply offered my point of view, as every one of your points above, if true......affects me personally.

Non-military folks think that the reason the military personel get "burned out" or whatever term you wish to use- "lack of motivation" etc- is NOT neccesarily due to combat- now- my view of the military personel themselves is different than DTOM and my information is different- - I provide family and personal counselling to them for various reasons- of course, right now, the bulk of my "work" is with returning soldiers and how them cope in a non-combat role, some do well, some don't - it is the financial burdens that the reservists and guard members face when they return that is so emotionally taxing from my viewpoint- but I digress- the real burn out factor is not just in the combat arena- it is military wide- DTOM I will try to find the study if you don't already know it- it is the long and ardous duty without ceasing in ALL areas of the military- short strength in combat units means less poeple "in garrison" doing those "support" jobs- up here, sometimes weeks without hardly a day off, when they do get a day off, they get "beeped" for this reason or that on a regular basis. I know this, because my "day" job has the same problem with "mandatory overtime" -

you see, when there is a shortage of combat personel- they get first priority- so those positions can, of course, and should be, filled first- and lower priority everywhere else.

Soldiers aren't complaining about deployment as much as they are the work loads while NOT in combat. And that is causing retention problems, big time.

First off- in a REAL emergency (vs this contrived war)- EVERY soldier is capable of being a "combat troop"- every single troop that goes through basic and AIT has the basic skills to perform in combat.

So the "900k" troops are simply "support" and can't fight is NOT true.

So the truth lies somewhere in the middle, of course.

So we have to speculate- that is what "war gaming" is all about after all!

Okay- let's say our glorious leader decides to attack Iran tomorow - so- can we maintain Iraq AND attack Iran?

We could probably attack them, probably take the whole country, with fairly high casualities, and fairly quickly- just like Iraq.

You see, WINNING a country, and HOLDING AND OCCUPYING a country are two very different things.

I would hazard a fairly educated guess that Iran would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a boy scout jamboree.

So, though the question is probably over simplistic, as with any debate-

I would say this

YES- we could attack about any country we want- I think Karl Rove is planning on France right now - but could we HOLD it?

NO, I don't think we could sustain any long term occupying action in another country at this point, based on recruitment rates, burn out rates of the soldier themselves, and the needs we are finding short even right now.


Oh, and your first question pre-supposes that Iraq is stable now- which it is clearly NOT

DTOM- I think what he means by "The loosening of parameters concerning whom the military appeals to"- is the lessening of standards for recruitment- like you can have just a GED and such for enlistment now etc.

I don't disagree with too much of what you are saying CR, after all, we are both providing what we see from our point of view.
My question to you would be this.....if burnout is such a problem among soldiers, how does that translate into measurable data? Is the burnout simply a normal factor of life in a high stress job? Don't retention rates belie the assertion that burnout is at an all time high?
I agree that non-deployed time has increased in tempo, but much of that is due to lessons learned, and training conducted to mitigate the threats for any upcoming rotations.

The study identified work load and hours.

No- because, as you know- this is not a regular "high stress job"- and the payoffs that it implies.

1) You can quit a high stress job- very important component- some wouldn't mind this load- if it were thier choice and they could quit if it became a burden on thier family. I know there will be the usual "tough luck, that's the military" that we usual get about this comment about hardships of the military. But, come enlistment time- it is all about retention- not about forcing more duties down thier throat- so they speak with thier feet.

2) Usually means more money- and in a comparable high stress job- we get alot of ex-soldiers, many of them just out, or out -proccessing and still on leave- at my job- earning about half again as much as they did- and that is just entry level for a highl motivated and driven ex-soldier with a head on his shoulders these days.

3) Family burdens are not really a top level concern of hte militry- I mean, spending quality time- I am NOT saying they don't have a support network- but, quality time with the soldier and his family kinda isn't where the military needs the soldier right this minute- which, of course, may be the price while enlisted- but at retention- it has alot to do with the decision making process.

Here is an article based on the Rand study- which I have not been able to find, sorry- so if it has slant one way or the other for you- you can find the Rand study perhaps somewhere I haven't seen so far- but I will keep looking

http://www.sitnews.us/1205news/122005/1220..._retention.html

To those already in the ranks, the RAND study showed, long hours and an unrelentingly heavy work load are exhausting those not only in the war zone - where 20-hour days and seven-day weeks are common - but also those at the home bases.

"Focus-group members said that personnel shortages caused by the loss of personnel to deployment meant that those left behind had to accept more responsibilities and take on extra work," the study said.

The seemingly unrelenting "operations tempo" is a major contribution to job burnout, the study said. Even those who find combat deployments a positive experience say the prospect of continued combat tours is disheartening, both to them and their families.

And a family can keep that up for "X" times, and really militarily minded couples that are both in the military and such, IMHO- not from the study- can do it- but the majority of families can't deal with that stress for the amount of time much longer than the military is stretched right now.

And you know- a very large group of potential recruits are the children of the serviceman and woman- and if thier upbringing is not a positive experiance- and a very negative one even- not from the heroic end of a parent- but the stress and arguing and such with "garrison" duty- you are going to lose those kids too.

So when I think "stretched too thin"- I think of it as those in every position, not just combat - and yeah, they are stretched to thin.

I agree with the part about speaking with their feet, but if the military was such a hardship these days, even in garrison, why are so many re-enlisting?

I disagree with this assessment. Granted I don't speak for every soldier, and I can't speak for every unit. But throughout my career, missions and OPTEMPO have always been balanced with family time. That remains true to this day. I could have just been really lucky throughout my years, but that would mean most of my buddies and compadres have been lucky also, since they express similar sentiments. I'm in a Brigade Combat Team that is prepping for a combat deployment. We are also standing up from scratch in the new template of modularity that I discussed previously. Even with all of the stress and re-inventing of the wheel that any Army unit does, as well as the added overhead of the two criteria I just mentioned..........My Brigade Commander has decreed that we will not train on the weekend unless and until we get close to deployment. We are released early on Fridays and my section operates under the adage of 'If you don't have anything to do, don't not do it here'. Meaning, if we're not training, or have a project due immediately, we cut our boys loose early.
My situation is not unique. I know my perspective represents a microcosm in the big picture, but I don't think studies, even by a respected organization as RAND can truly capture the snapshot of such a large and diverse organization. The study can be read Here.
Now, don't get me wrong.......we train hard. I'm tired at the end of the day! I'm also getting older..... But I see plenty of balance between work and family time. Remember we're Federal employees and get four day weekends for most holidays, and take additional days off for training holidays. Not to mention 30 days of paid leave each year. All in the name of quality family time and re-charging the batteries.
The RAND Study looks interesting, I've only skimmed through it so far. And it likely brings up fair assessments. The military isn't perfect by a long shot, and there's plenty that I would change if only they would see fit to commission me and appoint me Chief of Staff. There's also no doubt that the OPTEMPO is higher than normal right now, but for the several factors I've outlined before, I consider it a temporary situation, and I don't consider the Army to be stretched to the breaking point.

Not just a GED.

The Marines, Navy, and Army all require 15 college credits as well.

You also must have completed the 10th grade prior to getting your GED.

DTOM- are you talking retention of Active components or Reserve/Guard components?

I can definately see retention of Active components doing just fine- now the figures I see for Reserve components has us missing the goal about about 20%-

The difference is, of course- the Active Army is far, far more family friendly than the reserve components- I am not saying in terms of shutting them out of support network groups or anything- but they typically have "real" jobs (thier words, not mine okay? LOL) live off post and such- so they take an enormous financial hit by be being activated and "stop lossed" - they can not lose thier house while on Active duty- but the minute they are out- they frequently lose everything.

My own count has over 40 families in the last year returning to financial total ruin!

Many times- I have heard men say "I wish I would have died in Iraq, it is better than total financial ruin and divorce that I am going to have to go through now"-

so many times than I can bear sometimes.

I think Army retention will continue to do fine- but with low new recruitment numbers, coupled with the reservists/guard units not meeting atrition levels, in some areas, as high as 20% shy of those attrition levels- the militar IS stretched very, very thin.

You just have to look at the TOE of several local units in a state like Alaska, that traditionally have NO problems with retention and attrition levels- to see we are in trouble here.

In the last year alone- our state "retention intention" (you know what that is I am sure DTOM, I don't know how to explain that to the non-military types) dropped from 75% to 46% !

That SHOULD be cause for alarm, I don't care who ya are! (Sorry in Advance to Larry the Cable guy LOL)

By and large I was referring to the active component. My wife recently resigned from the Army Reserves, primarily because she didn't want to deploy for 12 months again, and miss out on our little girls growing up.
Due to her experience in the Reserves, I have seen both sides of the fence, and I agree that the Guard/Reserve side is taking a harder hit than the active component.
But I want to dispell two common myths.
First, a larger majority of soldiers in the active Army live off post than on. I have lived off post for most of my time in, mostly due to personal choice. Reservists, when on active duty, receive the same Basic Allowance for Housing as the active soldiers do. Many Reservists additionally live within driving distance to military bases of all branches, any of which they can shop for food and other items at the Commissary and PX/BX. Not all mind you, but many.
Secondly, a surprising conclusion was released by RAND, (maybe the very study we have been talking about) that shows:
(AP) Most military reservists who left their civilian jobs to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan made more money there than in their regular jobs, according to a study that contradicts the notion that citizen soldiers lose money when they go to war.
The study, by RAND's National Defense Research Institute, found that 72 percent of the troops surveyed made more while on war duty in 2002 or 2003 than they did in their civilian jobs in 2001. More than half made at least $10,000 more.
Link.

My wife held a GS job while serving as a Reservist, and her deployed pay was far higher than her civilian pay. So much so that we are completely debt free now. When I deploy again, hello kids college funds.

Back to the big picture, unit manning levels and drops in recruitments have always been a problem for the military, at least in cycles. I ran across this transcript on PBS.org from 1999. The wording of the host and the guest (a Congresswoman) sound awfully familiar to what is being said today.

TOM BEARDEN: Even though today's U.S. Army is much smaller than its Cold War days, it has soldiers stationed in many more overseas deployments. Americans are keeping the peace in Bosnia, helping relief efforts in Africa and Central America, and this week, Congress debated whether to send 4,000 American soldiers to Kosovo as part of a NATO peacekeeping force. The problem is that the Army is already having a hard time getting enough people to join the service.

TOM BEARDEN: One of the objections raised in yesterday's debate in the House of Representatives was whether yet another mission would degrade the readiness of an already short-staffed military.

REP. SUE MYRICK, ® North Carolina: To put it simply, our forces are stretched too thin around the globe to commit four or five thousands troops in an effort whose end is nowhere in sight.
Link


Not entirely true. The 15 college credit hours refers to enlistees who do not have a H.S. diploma.

Educational Credentials. DoD implemented a three-tier classification of education credentials in 1987. The three tiers are:

* Tier 1—Regular high school graduates, adult diploma holders, and non-graduates with at least 15 hours of college credit.
* Tier 2—Alternative credential holders, including those with a General Education Development (GED) certificate of high school equivalency.
* Tier 3—Those with no education credential.

Link

1.)Can we realistically continue to maintain stability in Iraq without compromising our ability to deal with other "rogue nations" if/when the need arises?

The United States certainly retains the ability to deal with rogue nations while simultaneously acting to preserve peace in Iraq. Firstly, American forces in Iraq represent a small fraction of the total U.S. capacity to wage war, particularly on a large scale. Moreover, U.S. non-conventional arms are abundant enough to render any potential threat innocuous, which can be facilitated by simultaneously developing lighter forms of non-conventional warfare that are more appropriate for that new battlefield that has come to be known as the war for public opinion.

2.)What steps could be taken to ensure that Iraq isn't left to become a terrorist haven, while at the same time alleviating the strain on our ground forces?

A phased withdrawal is the only plausible solution. Such withdrawals should be contingent on the Iraqi governments' achievement of certain established benchmarks that would be required to maintain a strong, funtional central government. Furthermore, along with these withdrawals must come increased levels of arms transfers to the Iraqi military, thereby providing them with the means to consolidate their power within Iraq and offer resistance to foreign intrusions within its territory.