Posted on 05/15/2004 12:49:06 PM PDT by RWR8189
It's even worse than you think.
FOR MONTHS, it has been obvious that the United States needs more forces in Iraq, and that the Army is not large enough to sustain even the current level of deployment in Iraq. The Pentagon, however, has consistently refused to face reality. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, abetted by the senior military leadership, has instead been playing a shell game with American troops. The decision some weeks ago to keep 135,000 soldiers in Iraq was described as an "increase," because the administration had been planning to send 20,000 of them home. The same Orwellian logic is being applied once again, this time to the Army as a whole.
Bills before Congress now propose "increasing" the Army by "30,000" troops over the next three or four years, but this "increase" is just as ephemeral as the "increase" in American troops in Iraq. The Army's current authorized end-strength equals 482,000 active soldiers. The crisis in Iraq and the war on terror in general have already led Congress to allow the Army to maintain a somewhat higher strength and finish this fiscal year with 501,300 soldiers. The congressional proposals would grant a temporary three-year increase in authorized end-strength to 512,000. It is true that the overall difference in authorized end-strengths is 30,000 soldiers. It is also true that the Army desperately needs congressional approval to fill its ranks even at the current level, since more than 6,000 soldiers are being kept in the Army only because of the "stop-loss" now in place. As soon as that stop-loss is lifted, many of those soldiers will leave. What is not true, however, is that the congressional proposals will increase the number of soldiers now in the army by 30,000. The actual increase will be fewer than 10,700 bodies, gained gradually over the course of several years. This measure is a trivial palliative compared with the Army's actual needs.
Worse yet, rumors are now swirling that one of two maneuver squadrons (battalions) of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment will soon deploy from Fort Irwin, California, to Afghanistan, and two of the three companies of the 1st Battalion of the 509th Infantry Regiment will travel from Fort Polk, Louisiana, to Iraq. These units are the permanent "opposing forces," or OPFOR, at the National Training Center and the Joint Readiness Training Center respectively. Their sole mission is to prepare other Army units for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever the nation needs them. Throughout the year, units from all over the Army go to the NTC and the JRTC and run field exercises trying to defeat the OPFOR in "laser-tag" simulations using real weapons and equipment. The training those units receive is only as good as the OPFOR makes it, since soldiers would learn little fighting an incompetent opponent.
Over the years, these units have performed their job superbly, and they are one of the major reasons for the high quality of Army forces in the field today. Both units have served as OPFORs for more than a decade, and they have become the premier training units in the world. Units replacing them will not be able to match their level of skill and experience for a long time. As a result, the level of training in the Army will be degraded, and Army forces deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan will be less well prepared. This decision is incredibly shortsighted. It mortgages the future to pay for past and present failings. It is symptomatic, however, of the sort of damage the Army is suffering on a day-to-day basis because of the inadequacy of its end-strength.
The question is often asked, Can we really build up the Army now through a volunteer system? Would we not have to restore the draft to increase the force? The answer is that we can certainly recruit more soldiers. Amazingly, recruitment has not suffered significantly from the war or the impositions on soldiers today. But additional troops will not be picked up instantly. It takes time to recruit and train new soldiers. This is why we should make haste. The longer we delay, the longer it will take before any relief comes into sight for our weary and overworked soldiers.
Instead of providing for such relief, congressmen, often claiming to be bold, are proposing budgetary band-aids, while the secretary of defense justifies their claims by steadfastly objecting even to those band-aids. This behavior is difficult to comprehend in an administration that took office promising that help was on the way to a military starved by the Clinton administration. Yet even today, with the Army at the breaking point and Iraq on the edge of catastrophe, there is no help coming from the Bush administration.
Frederick W. Kagan is a military historian and the coauthor of While America Sleeps.
"FOR MONTHS, it has been obvious that the United States needs more forces in Iraq,"
This needs a "aw no, not this cr*p again" alert.
Abazaid said it best: Yes, Iraq needs more security forces, and they need to be Iraqi security forces.
Not only do we need a bigger active-duty military, but we need it to be about twice as big as it is now if we're going to seriously prosecute this War on Terror and also maintain our extensive list of commitments around the world. And it's a bogus excuse that we can't do it with volunteers; our volunteer force was almost twice the size a mere 15 years ago.
Bump.
OPFOR to Iraq? My son was with the 509th for five years. Aren't they usually just on alert for home security?
Rumsfeld is dead right to try to make the best use of what he's got...but it's not his call on how much that is. An army costs money - lots of money. This administration's top priority is to cut taxes - something they can't defend if they seriously increase the size of the force.
"FOR MONTHS, it has been obvious that the United States needs more forces in Iraq"
Really? Did I miss something?
Moreover, given our experience with the required call-ups of our reserve forces and the overseas force rotation tempos over the past three years, I'm not now too inclined to argue against him.
Incidentially, his November, 2003 treatise, The Art of War, is a detailed analysis of Amercian military forces and their future role in the world can be found at "http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/22/nov03/kagan.htm"
Long, but worth a read.
To illustrate why you are 100% wrong, do me a favor and tell me what all those new troops are specifically to do to fight the war on terror.
Again, be specific. What will all those extra troops do?
Yawwwwwwwwn
I saw the heads of the reserve components testifying before Congress a little while back, talking about the transition in their role from strategic reserve to operational force. And a recent DA press release announced that IRR soldiers (soldiers who had completed their active duty obligation but not completed 8 years on the military roles) would be called to fill slots in reserve units.
Bottom Line: IMHO, we need larger Budgeted End Strength for the active Army. We're writing checks we can't cash and there's nothing in the bank for a rainy day.
You know you never see one of these stupid yucks say I am going to do my duty and join becuse the USA needs me. I bet you anything this prick has never seen the inside of a uniform.
How interesting. Got a name to go with that assertation, do you?
But you can find a few dozen fired Army Generals ready to sing their praises any day of the week on CNN.
I'm such an ignoramus. I always thought that the Department of Defense was at the Pentagon and that the CIA headquarters was at Langley, Virginia. The CIA is at the Pentagon now?
I'd certainly agree that Mr. Kagan differs with SDef Rumsfeld on some major policy points current planning and doctrine issues in the Pentagon these days, mostly in that Kagan warns against an over-reliance on technology and "stand-off" war-fighting while lobbying for a more "balanced" force structure. As I mentioned above, given our experience over the last three years, I'm not so ready to discount that view as some, somewhat based on my having lived through the "efficiency expert" days when Mr. McNamara and Company were running the shop.
As to Mssrs. Kagan and Kristol "only wanting jobs in a McCain White house," I can only concede that you probably know much more about that than I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.