U.S. Army Plans Four-Year Boost of 30,000 Forces

Reuters ^ | Jan 28, 2004 | Vicki Allen

[OldCorps]

By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Strained by operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), the U.S. Army will boost its forces by 30,000 through emergency authority it expects to last four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told Congress on Wednesday.

But Schoomaker, testifying to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, rejected calls from lawmakers for a permanent increase in forces, saying it would undermine efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.

"Right now, I've been given the authority by the secretary of defense to grow the Army by 30,000 people ... under emergency powers," Schoomaker said. He said the authority from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was to last for four years.

The Army is already about 11,000 soldiers over the 482,000 troop limit authorized by Congress under the emergency provision the Pentagon (news - web sites) invoked, largely through "stop-loss" orders that block soldiers from leaving or retiring and through re-enlistment incentives.

Schoomaker told reporters after the hearing the Army would move quickly to add nearly 20,000 more forces, saying, "We want to achieve it as quickly as we can."

He said money for the additional troops would come from the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan Congress passed in November.

Schoomaker said he wanted the additional troops to be incorporated into the Army's efforts to transform itself into a lighter, more mobile force for post-Cold War conflicts.

He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Army's authorized troop levels, which he said would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.

"What I stress again is we should not make a commitment for a permanent end-strength (troop) increase at this time," Schoomaker said. He said that would result in the kind of bloated, poorly trained force that plagued the Army in the 1970s.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, said the Pentagon seemed to be ducking its obvious need for more manpower in order to save money for the Bush administration's priorities, such as developing a missile defense system.

"We cannot put the strain on our military and on our American people just because we insist ideologically to keep the budget the way it is," Tauscher said.

She is pushing legislation to increase the size of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps for five years at an estimated cost of up to $4 billion.

[OldCorps]

Mr. Rumsfeld finally sees the obvious.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks for posting this.

Anyone have a shot of Tauscher with a tank driver helmet on?

She is a most unusual rep, banging the drums for more military spending , especially since she is from the Bay Area.

[BenLurkin]

"What I stress again is we should not make a commitment for a permanent end-strength (troop) increase at this time," Schoomaker said. He said that would result in the kind of bloated, poorly trained force that plagued the Army in the 1970s.

What do you make of this claim?

[Yasotay]

Thanks for this post. Rumsfeld may see the obvious, but does the ACS?

He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Army's authorized troop levels, which he said would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.

"What I stress again is we should not make a commitment for a permanent end-strength (troop) increase at this time," Schoomaker said. He said that would result in the kind of bloated, poorly trained force that plagued the Army in the 1970s.

I don't know yet if I like some of the things that I am hearing from this ACS.

[Sci Fi Guy]

What do you make of this claim?

A general is trying to defend the policy of the administration.

[Fee]

Before we expand the combat forces we need the production base for the big three items- POL (petrol, oil, lube designed specially for mil veh); bullets; mil spec batteries. Factories for these three items have been strained as they meet the requirements for NG training and Iraqi/Afghanistan operations which are mild compare to a real hot war op tempo. These are non glamorous, but vital items for supporting an expanding ground force. The production base is the foundation for the Army/USMC. I like to see us go back to the 2.5 war strategy which requires 16 combat divisions plus 3 Marine divisions. I say pull the forces out of Korea and Germany (but leave the log structure and POMCUS sites in case we need to come back for serious business) and have they forces available to deployment anywhere in the world. I hope Rumsfeld understands that armies need to stockpile and have redundant production factories for all possible contingents. WalMart logistics doesn't cut it.

[OldCorps]

What do you make of this claim?

Yes the army was bloated and poorly trained in the 70's. Gen Shoomaker has to keep his words in line with Sec Rumsfeld, so he is not going to openly espouse an army stregnth increase. It takes a lot of money to train up and maintain an army division (roughly 15,000 soldiers). If the money to train them and maintain equipment is not allocated (such as during the Carter years), you would have an imbalance of lots of soldiers, but are untrained.

[Yasotay]

I totally agree that Walmart logistics don't it. Sorry I don't buy the argument about not enough Class III, V & IX supplies. There is plenty of equipment available, but it would probably still take a year to get a new division combat ready. We have already left Saudi Arabia....choke up a win for OBL there. Leaving Korea would make the US look really weak to China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Running away from part of the Axis of Evil is just not our best play. I still see a need for the draft. If we lose during this "spring offensive" in Pakistan (there are allot of Pakistan Army Officers that hate us) .... who are we going to call the ghostbusters? This expansion is just the first step, "stop loss" can't continue forever, the draft will happen shortly after the election.

[BenLurkin]

" . . .the draft will happen shortly after the election."

WOW. That is a heck of a prediction. If so, maybe my teenagers will take ROTC a little more seriously as they look at collge options.

[Fee]

We have enough, but the only ammo factory and few lithium battery manufacturers are at capacity to keep up. Reason is National Guard units are doing more intensive training and operations in Iraq/Afghanistan. The Op Tempo is not that rigorous compared to a hot war. We are at capacity unless we expand the factories needed, otherwise in a real conflagration (i.e Iranian intervention with irregulars) our troops will really be scrambling. I do not worry too much about North Korea, because the ROK military has been stockpiling quite alot of ammo, spares and etc. Iraq/Afghanistan we are on our own.

[Yasotay]

I knew about the ammo and actually bid (and lost) on the development of a plastic case to run at 1,000 rounds per minute. The battery was a surprise to me. Thanks.

[Yasotay]

I have heard that many of the draft boards are being "activated". That is the basis for my prediction. If ('if' is a very big word) we sustain a major nuclear attack before the election, besides the Marshall Law that General Franks publicly predicted, the draft will be started ASAP. Nothing wrong with ROTC ....