Ground forces too small

The Washington Times ^ | January 25, 2005 | Robert H. Scales

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

Ground forces too small

By Robert H. Scales
Published January 25, 2005

---

A close look at photos of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforces the painful truism that soldiers and Marines are doing virtually all of the fighting and dying. This isn't a new phenomenon. From Korea to Iraq, four out of five of those who died at the hands of the enemy were infantrymen. Not just soldiers and Marines, but infantrymen, a force that today comprises less than 6 percent of those in uniform.

    With the exception of Kosovo, the success of American arms in every conflict after World War II was threatened by a shortage of ground soldiers. In Korea and Vietnam, the shortage was addressed by rushing young men into deadly combat before they wereadequatelyprepared.The deadlyarithmeticinIraq continues true toform,with close-combat soldierscomprising at least three-quarters of our dead. Yet if all Army and Marineinfantrymen were collected together in one placethey would not fill FedEx Stadium.

    The pressures of war and the parsimony of past administrations have broken the Army twice in the past 40 years. In Vietnam, the pressures of fighting a war with too limited a force caused Army noncommissioned officers, the human glue that holds our Army together, to leave en masse. The result was chaos. In the early '70 conditions became so bad that the American Army virtually ceased to exist as a fighting force. Again in the late seventies the Carter administration tried to accomplish too many missions with too few soldiers. Again the Army voted with its feet, creating a "hollow Army" that embarrassed the nation with...

[Rakkasan1]

pre-Korean war grunt level ping

[meandog]

Sint ut sunt aut non sint (L) Let them be as they are or not at all!

[Rodney King]

A close look at photos of American service personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan reinforces the painful truism that soldiers and Marines are doing virtually all of the fighting and dying. This isn't a new phenomenon. From Korea to Iraq, four out of five of those who died at the hands of the enemy were infantrymen. Not just soldiers and Marines, but infantrymen, a force that today comprises less than 6 percent of those in uniform.

Who would he prefer do the fighting and dying? Non-soldiers?

[r9etb]

Obviously time to start recruiting bigger soldiers and Marines.

[.cnI redruM]

This has some truth to it. One of the few intelligent ideas I've heard the Dems actually put forward was to add two divisions to the US Army. It would be an interesting turn of events if Kerry actually offered up his plan as legislation, rather than just running his mouth about it.

[randog]

Ground forces too small

Isn't that a private issue...;^)

[dirtboy]

Who would he prefer do the fighting and dying? Non-soldiers?

This is one of the stranger critiques I have seen. It's right up there with the claim that, if we had Vietnam-era weapons, tactics and medical treatment, we would have Vietnam-era casualties.

[dirtboy]

This has some truth to it. One of the few intelligent ideas I've heard the Dems actually put forward was to add two divisions to the US Army.

I would be in favor of that as well - but that still would not change the obvious fact (something that this dude treats as profound and previously hidden) that most of the men who die in combat are ... get this ... front line soliders doing the fighting!

Somehow to him, that is failure. To anyone else, it is a symbol of our overwhelming technological superiority that our enemies have a hard time attacking our other assets.

[taxcontrol]

I would contend that the Army does not need new divisions. I'm of the opinion that divisional organization is not flexible enough to meet the current demands on manpower. True, we need more troops. I would prefer to see the Army have 6 to 8 more combat brigades, the Marines could use another 3 to 4.

[Brilliant]

BS.

[EQAndyBuzz]

If we had all those Hollywood weapons(love the gun Jesse uses in Predator) we could have sent in ten guys and a cool looking recreational vehicle and been done with this war back in 91.

[speed_addiction]

From Korea to Iraq, four out of five of those who died at the hands of the enemy were infantrymen.

No sh!t, Sherlock! Could it be because the infantry does most of the fighting? The infantry, if you think about it, does not have to be a huge fighting force. A squad of infantry when faced with superior numbers can bring a lot of firepower to bear on the enemy through the close support of artillery, armor and air power. It is not like these guys are out there by themselves.

I served in one of the best infantry units in the world with 3rd Ranger Battalion. We had precious little in the way of equipment (being a "pure" light infantry unit) but we more than made up for it in training and fighting esprit de corps.

[Sola Veritas]

"This has some truth to it. One of the few intelligent ideas I've heard the Dems actually put forward was to add two divisions to the US Army. It would be an interesting turn of events if Kerry actually offered up his plan as legislation, rather than just running his mouth about it."

I agree. The idea was good, but it was just rhetoric on Kerry's part.

In truth we need to return to the force structure we had during the cold war; just not all in Europe as then. If we are seriously going to fight an ongoing "war against terrorism" then we need a larger standing army. Even two divisions is not enough. In the Army alone, I think we need at least 4 more. I would add 1 airborne, 1 air assault, one mech infantry, and 1 armor division.

Also, I would stop the nonsense of having "roundout" forces made of national guard and reserves as part of an active division. All active division should be manned at full strength with active forces.

[.cnI redruM]

Yeah, it's pretty much a given that infantry takes the brunt. I've seen very few well played chess matches where the pawns weren't the first pieces down and off the board.

[506trooper]

"...Dems actually put forward was to add two divisions to the US Army"

It was Clintoon who reduced the size of the military most recently. The rats don't have a clue.

Actually they probably need to add 4 Divisions.

Remember...you don't "own" a piece of ground until a man with a rifle puts foot on it.

[.cnI redruM]

Divisions or Bde's, take your pick. We need more grunts.

[Sola Veritas]

"Remember...you don't "own" a piece of ground until a man with a rifle puts foot on it."

Exactly! It always takes "boots on the ground."

[nicko]

agree...but double, perhaps triple your estimate-

[mark502inf]

Great article. Scales is the former Commandant of the Army War College and among his published works includes the official Army history of the first Gulf War--a very bright guy. I agree with both his contention that we are in a long-term engagement in the war on terror and that land power is the strategic arm of decision in that conflict. I also agree with his conclusion that increasing the size of the Army & Marine Corps, specifically adding more infantry soldiers & units, is vital if we want to win.

We have a techno-centric military right now with most of our resources in high cost air & sea systems of minimal use in the war on terror. As a result we have shorted the most relevant aspect of our combat power--the infantry. Doesn't matter how many planes, ships, missiles and quartemasters we have if we don't win on the ground where the battle's being fought.