Posted on 05/25/2004 9:51:46 AM PDT by 91B
Upsize The Army
NY Post
May 25, 2004
Is America's military strength stretched too thin for its obligations?
It sure looks that way.
Last week, the U.S. Army announced it will for the first time move troops from South Korea to Iraq: The 2d Infantry Division, based near the DMZ, will be sending a 3,600-man brigade.
More to follow, no doubt.
Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. Mideast commander, said last week that, after the so-called handover of sovereignty on June 30, America may well need more than the 135,000 troops now in Iraq.
But, whence the troops?
Maybe America's Korean garrison is too large - or even unnecessary - but depleting it out of apparent desperation sends a dangerous message to the world:
A message of overstretch.
A message that the United States lacks the military means to defend all its interests while it fights the War on Terror.
In theory, the U.S. Army has a million-man-plus army . . . if you count all 600,000 National Guardsmen and reservists.
In fact, though, the Guard and reserves can't be deployed indefinately.
And while it would seem that the 480,000 strong, 10-division Regular Army ought to be able to commit 138,000 troops to a low-intensity war like Iraq, that's really not the case.
Yes, the 175,000-strong Marine Corps has contributed mightily to the War on Terror - and will continue to do so.
But the fact is that the Army must carry the lion's share of the load - and it has a small number of combat-ready troops, relative to its size and to its task.
For every combat-capable brigade in Iraq or Afghanistan, another needs to be resting after deployment - and a third must be in training to replace the first.
A brigade here, a brigade there - pretty soon you're talking real troop shortages.
Fortunately, the U.S. Army is beginning a restructuring meant to give it more useful front-line strength.
For starters, it's converting some anti-aircraft units to light infantry (after all, no U.S. troops have been killed by enemy aircraft since the Korean War) and shifting artillery into the National Guard.
But how many more muddy boots on the ground will all that produce?
Apparently, not enough: The Army has asked for a temporary increase in "end-strength" of 30,000 troops - the equivalent of two new divisions - to see it through the stabilization of Iraq.
But why temporary?
Nobody - especially not President Bush - expects the War on Terror to end anytime soon. How does it hurt to bring the Army's active component up to 510,000 troops permanently?
Sure, the Army doesn't want to have to field more troops for the same amount of budget, and that's not an unreasonable concern.
But most experts reckon that it costs about $5 billion a year to field a division of 15,000 troops.
Even taking start-up costs into consideration, that's not a lot of money in the context of an $11 trillion economy.
Total spending on national defense stands now at less than 5 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
Indeed, just one-half of 1 percent of America's GDP totals a walloping $55 billion.
In that context, can America afford not to invest in sufficient numbers of well-trained troops?
It's still not clear how much 9/11 sawed off the American economy - but neither New York City nor the nation has fully recovered from it.
How much damage will the next attack do? And how much more likely will another attack be, if America's ability to take the War on Terror to the enemy is constrained by lack of troops?
Two unanswerable questions, to be sure. But adding two infantry divisions seems like a reasonable hedge.
There is no more putting it off: we need to stop trying to fight the war on the cheap.
18 divisions? It will not happen in the present budgetary and recruiting environment.
And remember, Clinton cut the armed forces nearly in half...
Yup. Funny, Hillery and her clan are now pounding that the military needs to be upsized and is too small when she and her bunch had a direct effect on the down-sizing of the military in the first place. Stupid people will believe anything.
The ripple effects that emanate from this kind of idiocy are far-reaching. In fact, this is the primary reason why oil is now trading north of $40 per barrel today.
At least let's move in that direction. I'll split the difference and see you 14 divisions (or the same number of brigades).
Huh? How is the New York Post Hillary's "clan"?
Military strength isn't the problem. The amount of "obligations" are. There are US forces in well over 100 countries, even pre 9-11.
And no one ever said running an empire was cheap. End the "global policeman" role and we have all the military we'll ever need.
I'm not going to argue with you about all the pork (you're right), but that still leaves the question of whether or not we need a bigger Army.
Yep.
Kindly note that the folks who made that claim included the embassy MARDETs and defense attaches in that count.
I think the war is worth fighting, but as I said even before 911 I thought our Army was too small. Even if you are just going to respond to short term crises 500,000 troops is not enough (after you factor in soldiers devoted to training, logistics and so on who would not be directly involved in combat operations).
I see your point, but even so, we have far too many military obligations outside of embassy defense.
Why do we defend Taiwan? Japan? Germany? Kosovo? South Korea? Haiti? Kuwait? The list goes on and on...
"American interests" is often the answer. However defense of our nation, not interests is our military's only legitimate purpose. These interests often amount to stabilization of hostile regions so business there becomes less risky.
A frank discussion of the purpose of our numerous military committments is in order any time we discuss insufficient military strength.
Hillary and her ilk want a draft, not just more military. With a draft, the war protests can then begin.
Whatever Hillary wants is likely bad for the U.S.
Personally I'd like to see us return to the Gulf War I troop levels of 700,000 active duty soldiers… There is no more putting it off: we need to stop trying to fight the war on the cheap.
There’s something I’ve noticed that has become more obvious though not really unanticipated: there’s no substitute for real, full time, properly suited for the mission soldiers in proper number who are well equipped with the most demonstratively effective equipment for the task. A limited number can not endlessly go the well without it beginning to run empty.
I just finished "Endgame; The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror".
Written by two retired General Officers (one USAF and the other USA) who are analysts for Fox News. It's a pretty quick read and has some good analysis of our current, and potential, troop strengths, worldwide, in all branches.
Worth the read (IMO).
Thanks. I wonder if we will continue to make recruiting targets if we keep this kind of operational tempo up for very long.
Having just returned (April 15th) from a year in the desert with my NCNG unit I can only say that you are absolutely correct. We did our dead level best and worked very hard, but we were at a disadvantage in numerous ways when compared to our regular Army counterparts (getting personnel repacements for instance was a huge issue).
to who? Only ourselves. We can't provide our young to die for the world's endless problems or to install democracy. George Washington was right. If we play no favorites in the world, we would have no enemies. Be ruthless to those who attack us like Pearl Harbor and bin Laden or declare war on us like Germany.
Build fortress America and forget building a trade and military world Empire. The sun now sets for good on the British Empire and it's trade and military conquests.
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.