Upsize the Army

The New York Post ^ | May 25, 2004

[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.

[Heatseeker]

I wonder if we will continue to make recruiting targets if we keep this kind of operational tempo up for very long.

I think recruitment depends mostly the economy. What I regret is that we didn't push the targets up when Bush first came in. With the economy steaming along and the jobs market starting to get tight again, it might be difficult to go a lot higher without another 9/11 (God forbid).

I think the Dem party hack and frequent PBS commentator Mark Shields is a jerk, but right after 9/11 he made a good point - that the President needs to involve everyone in the war effort. FDR did that in WW2 and it worked (although the reason the press was so supportive was, IMO, purely because defeating Hitler was also in the interests of their Stalinist puppetmasters).

[Tailback]

The Army needs to get away from thinking in terms of Divisions or Brigades. They should instead think of infantry, mechanized infantry, and armor Battalions. Divisions and Brigades with their giant officer staffs and support units waste manpower. Add a couple dozen of these battalions.

Pull troops out of Germany, Haiti, and the former Yugoslav republics. Tell the UN and NATO those are their problems now. They didn't help us, we won't help them.

These items alone effectively add tens of thousands more soldiers without a huge cost.

[Chief_Joe]

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).

91B, major thanks or your loyal service. I knew you were in theater for a while over there, but I didn't know the unit in which you served. I'm glad to here you've made it back. My primary concern is that we complete our mission over there and that we commit to strengthening our services up again.

[91B]

On this thread the other night you seemed to imply that we needed more troops in Iraq. Did I misread what you were saying? I am posting this article to support my belief that we need a bigger Army to fight the War on Terrorism, and I think that Iraq is a part of that war. We may need political cover like "installing democracy" to take some of the heat off in dealing with the international community, but making the country safer in the long run is the ultimate goal.

[Chief_Joe]

btw, or=for -typo!

[blanknoone]

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.

This is rather distortionary. IF the Army size was increased by 30K, I can almost guarantee that it would not be another 2 divisions because of all the associated tail. Our divisional strength accounts for about 1/3 of our Army's personnel. If we were to add 30K, it would add maybe 2 brigades in terms of manuever units.

Even inside divisions, a huge proportion of troops are non-combat. This is a problem that needs to be addressed...we have few manuever units, and even our manuever units have very very few shooters of any kind.

One of the first lessons learned in Iraq was about the vulnerability of CSS assets to even the most basic threat. Having all that support is great, that is what lets fighters get anywhere, stay anywhere and keep in essentials like water, ammo and fuel. But I think we have to reconsider the balance between combat arms and CSS.

If we are to do either a temporary or permanent expansion, I think we should create, organize and equip a unit (brigade?) as a 'peacekeeper' unit on a voluntary basis rather than constantly training war-fighters for peacekeeping and then peacekeepers back into war fighters and jury rigging organizations for missions for which they were not designed.

[ex-snook]

"On this thread the other night you seemed to imply that we needed more troops in Iraq. Did I misread what you were saying? "

No you got it right. Rightly or wrongly we have made this our war so I'm for getting our troops home quickly and safely and for that we need a lot more boots on the ground in Iraq. But I am not for any future expeditions to 'install Democracy'.

Even needing 'political cover' to persuade Americans for war illustrates a Chalabi-type manipulation. The first political cover was we were in urgent danger from their WMD and had to invade immediately.

[jpl]

They don't have enough money for a bigger military, but they sure had enough money to pass the gigantic prescription drug boondoggle, the biggest increase in the welfare state in decades!

[91B]

The first political cover was we were in urgent danger from their WMD and had to invade immediately.

I agree, but politically the administation is able to pressure its critics and give cover to our allies by invoking an appeal to democracy.

[Poohbah]

They don't have enough money for a bigger military, but they sure had enough money to pass the gigantic prescription drug boondoggle, the biggest increase in the welfare state in decades!

Because politicians heard that a majority of We Da Pee-Pull thought the prescription drug benefit was more important than a larger military.

The downside of self-governance: if the self-governing are a bunch of idiots, we get idiotic decisions.

[jpl]

Agreed. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a report recently that guys are actually being pulled from OPFOR in California to go to Iraq? If so, that worries me even more. Those guys are some of the best training forces we have in our entire military.

[Tallguy]

Our divisional strength accounts for about 1/3 of our Army's personnel. If we were to add 30K, it would add maybe 2 brigades in terms of manuever units.

This is absolutely correct, and the reason why we saw the Army cannibalizing its Field Artillery in order to provide ad hoc MP's & infantry after Baghdad fell. High tech militaries the world over suffer from small "Teeth to Tail" ratios. In modern warfare, the so-called "Tail" is the force-multiplier that allows your "Teeth" to function efficiently. The insurgents turn our strength into a major weakness by selectively attacking our so-called non-combat units.

The only way that I can interpret this administration's lack of enthusiasm for expanding the Army is that they truly are planning on curtailing the Iraq mission within a very short time frame. For tactical reasons, they cannot give a date-certain.

[RetiredArmy]

You missed the point. Hillery and HER CLAN are the ones who said/did it, not the post.

[Light Speed]

There is no more putting it off: we need to stop trying to fight the war on the cheap.

Good to see you here 91B

Reflecting on what has occured in Iraq..and surely a debate theme here at FR..was the future planning ..for after main combat operations.

Iraq has been a logistic's headache....the main issue which so many struggle with as they follow the news...the ambushes on Iraqs roadways.

I guess if one is going to choose a certain *Policeing profile...allow the indiginous to transit around the country..then you will need factor numbers of troops and assets to counter just the percentage of indiginous who will pick up arms and hit you in *their logistical freedom.

ROE has concerned me in Iraq...so to the presumption that the populace was willing to participate in their freedom from Baathist rule.

Hard to know what the cost has been to the U.S. military in the design of letting the Iraqi's get on with their lives type thing.

One solution..and surely it would have generated howling from the liberals and world objectors..would have been to lock Iraq down...restrict severely their ability to transit from town to town.
Resistence was a known factor...the quality of arms comming into the country..and the technicals [the crazies from Hizbullah,Hamas and other orgs who dropped in to teach the Iraqi's how to do IED's..how to use their RPG's.
Iran was sending in their knock off home built RPG's ..some were 105mm warheads..and could bust up an Abrams pretty good on a lucky hit..or when a skilled operator was in action.

Locking down a populace is an age old counter to chaos...in some cases..the armies of ancient times in the mid east,simply carted the *potentials off[the men/youth].
Disruption is a powerfull deterent if used properly.

Taking the tribal rulers and reading them the riot act would have worked in Iraq.
"We will return you to your environs..and *you will act to control your populace..or you will go to prison..someone elese will marry your wife and enjoy your kiddo's..you won't be coming back"
Ancient militaries and nations which used this principle to secure governed and controlled regions for hundreds of years.
the populace in subjection assayed their power and aquiesed in most cases..chosing to get on with life...understanding that the former days were over...make the best of it now..and live.

Kufa,Karbala and Najaf,
Sistani could have controlled this...but he didn't ..did he.

At great cost to the U.S. in so many forms...while Sistani sat back in Club Mosque.

Like spoiled children,Iraqi's have moved in an unrealistic mental mode..expecting all..demanding all.
An Army is not trained..nor can be expected to manage such unrealistic social idents.

Given so much space ..they took advantage of Americas gift to them.
A Year later..they want us to go away.
Like the entire reality was owed to them....we are simply something to use and discard at their whim.

Teaching them that their is a cost to Freedom...that the owness of credibility and trust is on them..not us ..would have been the right path for this self centered people.

[BARLF]

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF990108/epf509.htm

[91B]

The Post is who is saying it (expand the force) here. The Weekly Standard has said it (expand the force) in the past. I am sure that Hillary has her own reasons for saying it if she did, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it if it is good policy. Even a stopped clock...

[91B]

True, no good deed ever goes unpunished.

[91B]

True, no good deed ever goes unpunished.

[BARLF]

Q: Mr. President, you recently proposed boosting the defense by about $100 billion over the next six fiscal years. What is it that you hope to accomplish? And another question was asked, among several, what is the policy that you have implemented to attempt to keep so many key military men and women from leaving their positions?

THE PRESIDENT: From leaving their positions?

Q: Aging out or -

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, the military budget peeked in the late '80s and has been going down either in absolute terms or relative to inflation ever since, until a couple of years ago when we stabilized it. We have dramatically reduced the size of our armed forces. We have dramatically reduced the civilian work force supporting those armed forces.

But we now have downsized our force almost to, I think, the point where we shouldn't go lower. We can't go any lower and maintain our present military strategy -- which, among other things, calls upon us to be able to fight in two separate regional conflicts at roughly the same time, and enables us to fulfill our responsibility from Bosnia -- where we're keeping the peace and have saved Lord knows how many lives -- to Central America, where today and for the last several weeks, ever since Hurricane Mitch, the worst hurricane in well over a century, devastated Central America -- you've had several thousand of your fellow Americans in uniform who have been down there working every day to help rebuild it. And we have people on the seas, people in foreign countries, all over the world, on every continent.

I visited in Africa, when Hillary and I went to Africa this year I visited the young Americans that are part of the Africa Crisis Response Initiative, training African soldiers to deal with civil wars and other problems there. We are everywhere.

And what's happening is, as we've downsized the military, the following problems have arisen, and you should all be aware of them. Number one, the deployments overseas are lasting longer and the breaks between them are shorter. Number two, we haven't had the money to replace and repair our equipment as rapidly as we should. Number three, married people in the military who have families and children and who need to live in military housing have not seen any significant improvements in their military housing.

Number four, we have not done as much as we could have done, and as much I think we'll have to do in the years ahead, in modernizing the weapons that we have. And as you saw in the recent military action in Iraq, where we did a terrific amount of damage to the military infrastructure and the weapons of mass destruction infrastructure, while causing the deaths, the unintended deaths of far, far, fewer civilians than were lost even in the Gulf War a few years ago -- the technological edge the United States has is very important.

Finally, in certain critical areas, we just can't keep up with recruitment. We have a lot of pilots leaving because the airlines are doing very well and they can get jobs making a lot of money working for the airline companies. And I don't blame them, but it would bother you if you knew I needed the American Air Force and there weren't enough people to go fly the planes.

So when I say we're going to spend $100 billion over 10 years, you should know that some of that money is coming out of savings the Defense Department has achieved. And when information is lower than we thought, when fuel costs are lower than we thought, normally they'd have to give up that money -we're just letting them have money that they were budgeted for anyway. Some of that money will be new money. But we have to raise pay, we have to improve living conditions, we have to make sure that people are on safe equipment.

You know, not a single one of those planes that flew in Iraq came down, not a single bolt came loose, because people that you will never see worked like crazy, maintaining those planes in tip-top shape condition. They should -- no American pilot, no man or woman that flies those airplanes should ever have to worry about getting into an airplane, worrying about whether it's been properly maintained, whether the equipment was there and all of these things.

So that's what this is all about. And we are going to invest some more money in modernized equipment. I hope you will support this. I know everybody would like to see more money spent everywhere else, but they deserve it. (Applause.)

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF990108/epf509.htm

[OldCorps]

Funny you posted this editorial. I wrote a response on freerepublic over a year ago saying that we needed a few more divisions.