New boss, new military course

ORDINARILY, THE swearing in of a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a routine event with no significance for national security decision-making. But that was not the case with yesterday's changing of the guard, in which Navy Admiral Mike Mullen replaced Marine Corps General Peter Pace. President Bush chose not to nominate Pace for a customary second two-year term as chairman after Pace became too identified with the Iraq war mistakes of Bush's former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

The official reason given by Defense Secretary Robert Gates for denying Pace a second term is that the nomination process would have been "very contentious." But it is also clear that Gates wants a top uniformed officer who will provide more unvarnished advice than Pace did, both within the administration and in congressional hearings.

A key challenge Mullen, Gates, and Bush face is how to maintain the US ground forces they believe necessary in Iraq while also keeping Afghanistan from sliding into chaos. At the same time, the military has to be prepared for a sudden conflict elsewhere that requires US troops. During his Senate confirmation hearing, Mullen openly expressed his concern that the Iraq war was straining US forces and their ability to respond to other "crises and contingencies." Knowing how overstretched the military is, Mullen should be a voice in the administration against creating new conflicts in, for instance, Iran.

If Bush and Rumsfeld had adhered to the doctrine of former secretary of state Colin Powell, who long counseled against involvement in Vietnam-style quagmires, they would not have gotten US troops into an open-ended war against insurgents. Now America is paying the price for invading Iraq without either the overwhelming force or exit strategy that Powell had recommended. Gates's response to the pressure on US personnel and their equipment is to hasten by one year Bush's $3 billion plan to expand active-duty forces.

Since even the leading Democratic presidential candidates foresee the need for US forces in Iraq for years to come, some expansion is called for. But a major increase in personnel will be difficult at a time when recruiters are already offering generous sign-up bonuses and lowering standards on enlistees with criminal records.

Hanging over the entire debate on US force levels is General David Petraeus's candid answer to Republican Senator John Warner's question last month of whether the war in Iraq is making the United States safer. "Sir, I don't know actually," Petraeus said. "I have not sat down and sorted that out in my own mind." Gates and Mullen should insist on national security decisions in the administration that will guarantee that no officers or enlisted persons ever have to doubt that their service is making the nation safer.