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...

[semaj]

Somehow to him, that is failure.

I think the point of the General's complaint is that we do not have enough infantry troops. I would agree. We are placing a heavy burden on a relatively small number of troops. WIthout an increase in infantry troops the stateside rotations will need to be increased, and at the same time, the period for unit refitting and training will be shortened, all of which is an unfair burden placed squarely on the shoulders of the infantryman.

[506trooper]

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

Don't want to get too far from the beaten path, but your comment bring up a point.

From

FR post

This Marine Fighter pilot retires after Viet Nam, and spends the next 30+ years leading a successful life when 911 occurrs. Goes to the local recruiter and tells him he wants back in. Says gonna kill rag heads Semper Fi, Do or Die oorah. The Gunny tells him he's too old. The former pilot says no sweat, got a buddy at the pentagon, oorah. Calls his buddy at the pentagon and once again is told he is simply to old. No sweat, buy a boat gonna kill rag heads Semper Fi Do or Die Oorah. So he buys a boat and is rowing it across the big water when St Peter sees him and points him out to God and asks "what am I to do about him?". God says take his brain and he'll turn around not remembering where he is headed. St Peter takes his brain, but still the Marine is rowing singing gonna kill rag heads Semper Fi Do or Die Oorah. St. Peter once again points him out to God and says "now what", to which God says take his heart, it is from there his passion flows. So St. Pete removes his heart. The Marine is still rowing and singing gonna kill rag heads Semper Fi, Do or Die OORAH !!!! Now St. Pete says to God, I really don't know what to do now, and God says take his balls, that removes his aggression, and St Pete does that. The marine turns his boat around and sings "Anchors away my boys"..... 18 posted on 01/24/2005 2:13:05 PM PST by stumpy (M)

[r9etb]

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.

I don't see the correlation between "not enough guys" and the fact that the guys on the front line are the ones getting killed. Those are the ones you'd expect to get killed.

[dirtboy]

I think the point of the General's complaint is that we do not have enough infantry troops. I would agree.

I agree also. However, if you have more infantry troops, the ratio of infantry troops killed to non-infantry troops killed still would not change - which is why I can't understand his approach to this issue. I think a better approach is to look at whether we are burning out our combat troops because we have to rotate them over longer periods.

[Non-Sequitur]

That's OK. Remember that the correct answer to the question, "What has an IQ of 120?" is still "The First Marine Division."

[neverdem]

Fighting the last war once again.

How about having enough boots on the ground for the occupation to secure Iraq's borders, secure 600+ ammo dumps IIRC, and provide security until Iraq can take over.

[506trooper]

Gad...I love inter-service rivalries, especially from the service that invented "hot racking".

[Non-Sequitur]

Gad...I love inter-service rivalries, especially from the service that invented "hot racking".

This from the service where 'doing the laundry' means turning your underwear inside out before putting it back on again and where a 'Marine Shower' means dabbing on some deodorant.

[506trooper]

Better go look at my profile page...my parents were married to each other....not Navy or Marine.

[Yasotay]

A side note on Scales article, much of his theme seems to come from the book "A Perspective on Infantry" by a Canadian Infantry Officer named John English .... for the most part Scales is correct except for Desert One .... 'To the Everlasting lasting glory of the Infantry' ....

[Non-Sequitur]

Better go look at my profile page...my parents were married to each other....not Navy or Marine.

Ah, Army paratrooper. At least in the Navy we wait until the airplane is going to crash before we jump out of it.

[Beckwith]

FYI One of the few intelligent ideas I've heard the Dems actually put forward was to add two divisions to the US Army

The Reduction in Force Act (RIF) of 1993 reduced the size of the army by 40%. Seven divisions (that's 7) were inactivated. Remember who was running things then, Bill Clinton and a democratic congress.

Now you think the democrats have a good idea when they suggest increasing the Army by two divisions. Get real amigo. If they left the Army alone in 1993 we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Yasotay]

Actually that RIF occurred under Bush1 and Cheney, and it started in late 1991 early 1992.

[MissAmericanPie]

The situation does not help when Bush signs legislation preventing a mutalated vets from collecting both their retirement and disability.

The housing stinks, the benefits are nill, until being a soldier actually means profit, enlistment will suffer.

[506trooper]

There you go....better to have a personal body slam, I feel much better now.

For the type of warfare we're engaged in, infantry, the drop it in the skillet, grab it and growl guys, are critical. 6% force structure for the dirty work guys are simply not enough.

It's not as simple as deciding to reduce the number of other MOS's to ramp up the grunt force.

No infantryman fails to recognize the desirability or need of a combined force structure; grunts can't fly, sailors can't march, and the Air Force can't sleep outside where the snakes and spiders roam.

During the cold war we had a force structure designed to counter the threat....heavy army divisions, bigger (and more) ships, etc.

The force needs to be restructured to meet new and ongoing threats, and must be adaptable, and must have enough people at the point of the spear....we don't at this time.

During the Viet Nam era, the dragon's tail was 10 to 1. 10 people to support 1 grunt on the ground, and that was viewed as ludicrous at the time.

Now it's roughly 18 to 1

Yes, the military wins wars and battle through superior logistics and firepower but it still needs a grunt to take and hold ground until the political objectives are realized. We need more infantry.

[Meldrim]

Resume the Draft, Ping.

[Meldrim]

I'd prefer the Army to live up to every man an infantryMAN, first of all. No more Jessica Lynch's.

[Meldrim]

It is less a case that our Navy and Air Force are tougher to hit, than that we've had the luxury of incompetent enemies. Had we fought the Russians in the mid eighties our naval and air forces would have suffered plenty. And nobody would be talking about putting the gals aboard ships or having them fly combat aircraft.

[neverdem]

Peak troop strength in Vietnam was 543,482 (30 April 1969).

IIRC, in the US Army, the general ratio of support troops to combat troops is ten to one when you include all the troops in non-divisional support units.

[HerrKobes]

Please, you're both wrong.

In the Air Force we live in Kansas, North Carolina, Texas or Germany, occasionally taking trips to Guam, Korea and the Sandbox.

When there's a war you might be gone for four months if things last really long.

The officers do the bulk of the 'fighting'; we can destroy the world hundreds of times over from a room 40 feet underground, hit 80 distinct targets with GPS-guided bombs from one aircraft, and decimate infantry and mechanized forces with AC-130 gunships.

Our ASVAB scores are clearly the highest, and no doubt our entire enlisted force could be commissioned today as Army or Navy officers, resulting in a marked improvement in both services.

Plus we're better looking.