10.04.2013 Views

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

international resolve; in 2003, significant contribution to the US effort was limited to<br />

the UK and Australia.<br />

The failure of the US to garner wider support for its coalition – particularly in<br />

contributions of troops on the ground – created a significant military burden for both the<br />

US and the UK, most especially in the post-conflict * phase. The extent of the<br />

‘overstretch’ was highlighted in September 2003 – some 5 months after the cessation of<br />

‘major combat operations’ when the US had approximately 150,000 troops deployed in<br />

Iraq (but a total of over 180,000 when those in neighbouring countries and directly<br />

associated with operation in Iraq are included), equating to roughly one third of its total<br />

military manpower strength. The Congressional Budget Office at that time estimated<br />

that the US Army would be ‘unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size<br />

beyond about March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for<br />

longer than one year without relief (an assumption consistent with DoD's current<br />

planning).’ 135 It further assessed that beyond the winter of 2004-2005, only an<br />

occupation force of no more that 38,000 to 64,000 could be sustained without<br />

significant additional call-ups of reserves. The estimated cost associated with this level<br />

of sustained commitments was $8 billion to $12 billion per annum. At the same time<br />

the UK Foreign Office was, according to British newspaper reports, urging the<br />

deployment of greater troop numbers to counter the growing insurgency. 136<br />

Consequently, in what was widely seen as a climb-down by the Bush Administration,<br />

the US was forced to seek a UN mandate for Iraq’s occupation and with it the<br />

contribution of forces by a wider coalition. 137 US commentators, too, have argued that<br />

the nature of the case made for the Iraq war both turned away potential contributors and<br />

undermined the consensus behind the US’s wider strategy in its perceived ‘war against<br />

global terror.’ E J Dionne Jr, writing in The Washington Post 138 argued that using<br />

the tactics of a political campaign to sell the war in Iraq ….(had) turned off<br />

potential allies abroad. …. A war supported by straightforward arguments and<br />

based on a broad alliance, patiently constructed, could have united our nation<br />

and much of the world on behalf of democratic ideals. Instead, … the consensus<br />

brought into being by 9/11 has been shattered.<br />

* That is post cessation of ‘major combat operations’; actual conflict in the form of significant insurgent<br />

operations has continued unabated and caused significantly more casualties than the ‘combat’ phase.<br />

112

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!