Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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...


(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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
Where do we get them from?

How about a shift from the wild blue yonder & anchors aweigh branches into the caissons go rolling & halls of montezuma forces?

Let's face facts. We have the largest, most powerful air & naval forces in the world--we can certainly defeat the combined naval forces of the rest of the world and probably do the same to the combined air forces. And so what? although beloved of pork-barreling congressmen adn defense contractors, planes & ships are enablers in warfare, not deciders. Ground forces win wars. Our Army is 5th or 6th & is carrying the brunt of current combat as well as is the force most likely to be committed for the foreseeable future in the war on terror. Time to get away from the service parochialism and the congressional desire to support the equipment-centric Air Force & Navy that generate the most jobs in defense industries, and build up the part of our military that will actually do the fighting.

41 posted on 01/25/2005 1:26:57 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Our Special Forces have been searching the world over for OBL, al-Zaquari, and company. We have even activated and put in use the two NG Special Forces Groups. Scales is right. We need more ground pounders and sneakypetes, but it takes years to train them. Thank you Mr. Clinton, not.
42 posted on 01/25/2005 1:32:07 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
So I see a high ratio of combat casualties ...not as some inherent weakness in and of itself

Agree with what you said. However, I don't think that was Scales's point. He's maintaining that:

1-The infantry is the most vital part of our military in the war on terror.

2-That our infantry, at only 6% of our force, is under-manned.

3-Most of our casualties are in the infantry.

4-That high casualties, constant combat, and consecutive deployments will break our existing infantry units; such as was exemplified in the post-Vietnam "hollow Army".

5-And therefore, we need more infantry units to ensure we can continue what promises to be a very long land-centric campaign in the war on terror.

43 posted on 01/25/2005 1:43:06 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
" So you're talking about another 100,000+ troops"

Not meaning to split hairs here, but division strength approx 15,000, so we we need roughly 60,000; still a big number, and the answer is I don't know.

I think we need them.

I'm from a generation that viewed military service as an almost given, so I'm not sure what would motivate today's youth to join up.

More and or better incentives?

The authorized manning levels don't allow much more than we have active at this point; the first thing would be to allow a force structure authorizing the higher numbers.

44 posted on 01/25/2005 1:43:19 PM PST by 506trooper (No such thing as too much guns, ammo or fuel on board...unless you're on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
How about a shift from the wild blue yonder & anchors aweigh branches into the caissons go rolling & halls of montezuma forces?

They have been trying that. Since the Air Force and the Navy are scheduled to downsize a bit over the next year or two, there has been program in place called "Blue to Green" encouraging transfers from the Navy and the Air Force to the Army. It netted a grand total of 139 volunteers.

45 posted on 01/25/2005 1:43:58 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
We need more ground pounders and sneakypetes...

Yes.

... but it takes years to train them

And yes. So let's start right now. We're late already.

46 posted on 01/25/2005 1:45:42 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: 506trooper
The authorized manning levels don't allow much more than we have active at this point; the first thing would be to allow a force structure authorizing the higher numbers.

So can you figure out why the adminstration is fighting an increase?

47 posted on 01/25/2005 1:51:00 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
has been program in place called "Blue to Green" encouraging transfers from the Navy and the Air Force to the Army...It netted a grand total of 139 volunteers.

Which is about 139 more than some of us expected! Other things that they are starting that may produce dividends is employment of navy & air force medical, transport, supply, & engineering units in support of extended land ops. If this can be routinized, the Army can free up support force structure into combat units.

48 posted on 01/25/2005 1:52:28 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Which is about 139 more than some of us expected!

In fairness, 89 of them were Air Force types. Leaving 50 people who were really too dumb to be sailors in the first place.

49 posted on 01/25/2005 1:55:38 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So can you figure out why the adminstration is fighting an increase?

Secretary Rumsfeld came into office touting a "transformation" which would leverage high technology in order to decrease force structure with the Army being the biggest bill-payer at a 20% cut. The DOD budget & resourcing input through this year has reflected that view with no ground force increases & planned future increases for air & sea based high tech weapons. Finally, transformation theory has been spanked so thoroughly by the reality on the ground that this year DOD has increased (albeit temporarily) ground strength and has shifted money into both procurement and R&D that will be helpful in the war we are actually fighting.

50 posted on 01/25/2005 2:00:08 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
" So can you figure out why the adminstration is fighting an increase?"

Damfino, but a good question none the less.

If I could answer that question, I might be a candidate for the next SecDef.

51 posted on 01/25/2005 2:00:18 PM PST by 506trooper (No such thing as too much guns, ammo or fuel on board...unless you're on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf; dirtboy
The problem is that bringing additional divisions online and up to strength takes a lot of time. Even if you increase recruitment, you still need the cadre of NCO's and officers to staff it. And it takes years to create those guys.

The real question is whether we anticipate the current need for large numbers of infantrymen to continue for the next several years. Personally, I don't. I'd bet we'll have significantly fewer U.S. troops in Iraq by this time next year, and the number will continue to drop. The current manpower crunch will be easing significantly right about the time the first of those two divisions are coming on line.

52 posted on 01/25/2005 2:06:17 PM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
Which is about 139 more than some of us expected!

138. I did know an AFA grad who was a company commander in the 6/502nd back in 1992. Interesting guy. Not your normal zoomie.

53 posted on 01/25/2005 2:09:35 PM PST by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead

So, let's start now.


54 posted on 01/25/2005 2:09:38 PM PST by 506trooper (No such thing as too much guns, ammo or fuel on board...unless you're on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
And yes. So let's start right now. We're late already.

Rumsfeld is very wedded to his vision for the military, and has faced considerable resistance from the brass over his vision. Given the history of the military in these situations, especially in the context of someone like Billy Mitchell, who went through hell to be proven correct, I've been willing to give Rumsfeld's vision time to see if he is correct. And I also realize that the media is gonna doom-and-gloom the current situation.

However, having said that, I think that current events show we could not handle two major conflicts if the need arose - we are currently engaged in one major and one minor conflict - which means an alliance of enemies would confront us with a military situation that we are not equipped to handle. So we definitely need more troops, more ships and more airlift.

55 posted on 01/25/2005 2:15:45 PM PST by dirtboy (To make a pearl, you must first irritate an oyster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

What?

I thought we need 20% females! Was that the "quota", later renamed to "goal"?

Doesn’t a sexually diverse force MULTIPLY our combat power and make us more effective? To the senior leadership in the military I can only say "thank you", "Thank you for spending all that money and million of man hours on this crap while valuable training didn't occur". That is a reality of even right before the war began. Even then EO training was a bubble on a column on a form which had to go green or else bad things happen. Maintenence or EO? No joke.

Where are all the feminists now? Aren’t they using Lynch as an example yet? Oh wait. Forgot-that was a little different than originally presented.

I figure the best way we can deal with the issues in Iraq is to have MORE “sensitivity for others” and “EO” training. That will make us much more effective.

(sarcasm off)

Watch, this war will be over and our tough rugged careerist leaders in UNIFORM will again push this crap. It won’t even take long and EO training will take precedence over convoy, patrol or other training. Basic Training will get watered down again and after some incident with media attention they will initiate some remedy (training) aimed at fixing the problem whatever it may be. We have a remedy so the problem is fixed, right?

Could it be that this aspect (Females in the force) has failed and today as 10 or 20 years ago is a social experiment, which has cost us millions, and brought us little?

Red6


56 posted on 01/25/2005 2:18:58 PM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mark502inf
mark502inf writes:
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.

There is only one way the Army is going to assemble a force of "grunts" large enough to _win_ the War with Islam, and that is to _draft_ them.

There are plenty of volunteers for the "techno-centric" military, but as the war drags on - and expands - how many will knowingly volunteer for the dirty ground fighting? And, as mark writes, "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". Just where will they come from? Do we really expect that many to sign up voluntarily?

Since the time of the War For Southern Independence, the United States has needed to draft in order to build a fighting force sizable enough to defeat our enemies. It will not be different this time.

In the interests of full disclosure, I myself was drafted - TWO times - during the Vietnam era. So it's not a case of "do as I say, not as I do"; I done that already, thank you very much (US Army, 1970-72).

But - writing more than thirty years later as an older guy - I have seen many, many, many "tough talkers" on FreeRepublic regarding Islam, and our conflict with it, and what the United States must do to overcome it; I wonder how many of you young ones will remain as gung-ho when _your_ induction notice arrives?

Cheers!
- John

57 posted on 01/25/2005 2:19:52 PM PST by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
The problem is that bringing additional divisions online and up to strength takes a lot of time.

Agree. But we don't need more divisions. We need more infantrymen on the ground. Filling out units to full strength or adding an extra platoon per company or an additional company per battalion can be done very quickly. Adding battalion size elements would take more time, but still much less than "years".

we [don't] anticipate the current need for large numbers of infantrymen to continue for the next several years

I also think it is likely we will be drawing down in Iraq and need less there, but it is not a certainty. The same with Afghanistan. And given the world as it is, the likelihood of us being in significant land combat somewhere I think is much higher than the likelihood of us being in any reasonably stressful air or sea warfare scenario. We should restructure our military weighted toward the forces we will most likely need--and that is land forces. Even if some of those forces are comprised of the life-forms known as "jarheads"!

58 posted on 01/25/2005 2:21:21 PM PST by mark502inf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

My take on this subject was that the author was noting that it was the foot soldiers that were "fighting and dieing" not necessarily the air force and navy. The grunts are the ones who have to get up close and personal.
I thought that the gist of the article was that we have allowed our force structure to change so that we have less actual ground fighting units than we really need. ie. false savings by cutting ground troops and going for the sexy planes and missiles that aren't really effective given the current combat style. That's not to say that these other weapons aren't nice to have.


59 posted on 01/25/2005 2:24:57 PM PST by brooklin (What was that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red6
Garshk... All I was talking about was the headline: Ground forces too small.
60 posted on 01/25/2005 2:27:32 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson