Temporary Troop Increase For Army May Become Permanent

Los Angeles Times ^ | January 7, 2005 | Mark Mazzetti

[Former Military Chick]

WASHINGTON — The Army is likely to make a temporary 30,000 increase in troop numbers permanent as it struggles to ease the burden on forces strained by the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army general said Thursday.

The general, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the boost in the Army's ranks had become necessary for the military to meet its growing overseas commitments.

A year ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld allowed the Army to temporarily boost its ranks by 30,000 to reduce stress on the force. But he has long opposed a permanent increase in the size of the Army. Rumsfeld, with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, instead has been pushing a plan to increase the number of combat-ready troops by converting cooks, accountants and truck drivers into front-line soldiers.

But as Pentagon officials draw up troop rotation plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has apparently decided that these initiatives are not sufficient.

"The cumulative effect of these deployments is really catching up with us," another Army official said.

Army officials estimate that the permanent troop increase — which would bring the federally mandated size of the Army to 512,000 soldiers — will cost the Pentagon about $3 billion a year.

A Pentagon request for more troops would be favored in Congress, which must authorize such a move. Over the last year, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have supported legislation to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. The legislation died after White House and Pentagon officials opposed it.

The senior general also said the Army would push to change policy to allow the Pentagon to keep reservists on active duty longer than they now serve.

[Former Military Chick]

As usual they sway with fear and not with facts.

[KarlInOhio]

But he [Rumsfeld] has long opposed a permanent increase in the size of the Army.

I generally like Rumsfeld, but I believe that he has been wrong on this issue for a long time. We are in a world war now, and Rumsfeld has wanted to keep the "Peace Dividend" size military. The fact that the Reserves and NG are on such long deployments should be a clue that the active duty military isn't big enough for the war.

[Meldrim]

How will they fill the slots if they can't meet the current requirement? More unwed mothers in the ranks? This won't due if a Pusan Perimeter or Bastogne needs to get fought.

[LachlanMinnesota]

So much depends upon future mnilitary plans for occupation/presence in foreign locals, and in the assessment concerning the need to be prepared for another war with either China, Iran, North Korea, or some other coalition. My feeling is that we need to become a more prominent presence to avoid further wars, and this requires more troops in more places. I believe the US Military can be a tremendous asset as ambassadors for good will, in addition to defending us against foreign tyranny. Build them up, post them abroad, and treat them right, and it will be good for the entire world.

[wtc911]

This won't due if a Pusan Perimeter or Bastogne needs to get fought.......

___________________________________

At the Bulge we had 31 Divisions engaged. At Pusan Gen. Walker had 2ID, 25ID, 24ID, 1st Cav ID, 5th RCT as well as UK and ROK RCTs and IDs. We couldn't fight either of these fights today.

[Meldrim]

You are correct, precisely my point...and Patton or MacArthur didn't have to worry about evacuating pregnant troops...