Skip to comments.
Ground forces too small
The Washington Times ^
| January 25, 2005
| Robert H. Scales
Posted on 01/25/2005 12:30:14 PM PST by neverdem
|
|
The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com
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... |
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; army; draft; infantry; iraq; marine; marinecorps; marines; military; soldiers; specialforces; usarmy; usmc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
1
posted on
01/25/2005 12:30:16 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
pre-Korean war grunt level ping
2
posted on
01/25/2005 12:31:34 PM PST
by
Rakkasan1
(Justice of the Piece: There is no justice, there's 'just us'.)
To: neverdem
Sint ut sunt aut non sint (L) Let them be as they are or not at all!
3
posted on
01/25/2005 12:32:47 PM PST
by
meandog
(qu"Do unto others before they do unto you!")
To: neverdem
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?
4
posted on
01/25/2005 12:32:52 PM PST
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: neverdem
Obviously time to start recruiting bigger soldiers and Marines.
5
posted on
01/25/2005 12:33:18 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: neverdem
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.
6
posted on
01/25/2005 12:33:20 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Senator Boxer - For whom the bell curve tolls!)
To: neverdem
Ground forces too smallIsn't that a private issue...;^)
7
posted on
01/25/2005 12:33:54 PM PST
by
randog
(What the....?!)
To: Rodney King
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.
8
posted on
01/25/2005 12:34:45 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(To make a pearl, you must first irritate an oyster)
To: .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.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.
9
posted on
01/25/2005 12:37:03 PM PST
by
dirtboy
(To make a pearl, you must first irritate an oyster)
To: .cnI redruM
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.
10
posted on
01/25/2005 12:37:42 PM PST
by
taxcontrol
(People are entitled to their opinion - no matter how wrong it is.)
To: neverdem
To: dirtboy
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.
12
posted on
01/25/2005 12:39:24 PM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(60 votes and the world changes.)
To: neverdem
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.
13
posted on
01/25/2005 12:39:49 PM PST
by
speed_addiction
(Ninja's last words, "Hey guys. Watch me just flip out on that big dude over there!")
To: .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."
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.
14
posted on
01/25/2005 12:42:52 PM PST
by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: dirtboy
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.
15
posted on
01/25/2005 12:46:35 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Senator Boxer - For whom the bell curve tolls!)
To: .cnI redruM
"...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.
16
posted on
01/25/2005 12:46:56 PM PST
by
506trooper
(No such thing as too much guns, ammo or fuel on board...unless you're on fire)
To: taxcontrol
Divisions or Bde's, take your pick. We need more grunts.
17
posted on
01/25/2005 12:47:23 PM PST
by
.cnI redruM
(Senator Boxer - For whom the bell curve tolls!)
To: 506trooper
"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."
18
posted on
01/25/2005 12:48:29 PM PST
by
Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
To: taxcontrol
agree...but double, perhaps triple your estimate-
19
posted on
01/25/2005 12:49:07 PM PST
by
nicko
(CW3 (ret.) CPT, you need to just unass the AO; I know what I'm doing- that goes for you too, Major)
To: neverdem
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson