Posted on 09/25/2006 7:52:55 PM PDT by Perdogg
The strain on the Army from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has become so great that top officials are now privately saying the only long-term solution may be to make the overall size of the Army bigger, adding as many as 60,000 troops, ABC News has learned.
It's not a request or a recommendation yet, but senior Army officials have discussed this for weeks and are now in agreement that the Army could meet its worldwide obligations more easily by expanding the overall size of its force.
It would help matters substantially if they went back to 3/3 and 4/6 total services obligations. Eight years possible obligation on a first time enlistment in todays conditions are highly unrealistic and is just more temptation for Congress, Sec of Defense and POTUS not to fix what needed fixing years ago. Increasing permenant active duty manpower levels should have been top on the list for Bush in 2001. Eight year obligations are fine for lifers who know what to expect. But eight year obligations should be allowed first time only for Special Forces. The exception being cases where initial training alone will take nearly two years such as the Navy Nuke Operators and Special Forces.
It was an ill conceived idea to go to 8 year service obligation much like using NG and reservist as extensively as they are now and have been since 1991 rather than seriously addressing the manpower issue on a long term basis. Second thing would help bring back the original GI Bill at least for the Gulf War Vets.
"Don't we have forces that we can reassign."
No, not really.
Nothing, and I've had lots of experience with the draft and draftees. So did the so called "greatest generation."
See above, Parmy.
Not to take anything away from the great service you gave to this country but, imo, you are more the rule than you are the exception. One of the big lies about Vietnam is how well overall the draftees perfomred. BTW, I was commanding a Basic Training Company as the draft was ending. I believed then and I believe now we should not have done away with it. Just so you know, I enlisted in 61. Vietnam and the 60's pretty much define me.
THat would be the four division that Clinton stood down as a result of his 1993 Reduction in Forces Act.
OMG, I can't believe I'm reading this on FR! And nobody's called you on it! While I agree with the idea of increasing the overall size of the military (in a "smart" way), what you're posted here is pure moonbattery, worthy of being posted at DU.
You do know about the Laffer curve, right? You do know that every time marginal tax rates have been cut, revenues have increased? You do know that revenues are UP since the Bush tax cuts (as always happens)? There goes that argument...
Seems to me, if you want more money for military spending, taxes should be cut again! (along with common-sense cuts to discretionary spending and new caps on non-discretionary spending).
Not if you're a Marine.
No, they do need more men. We're talking more maneuver brigades built on the new template. People have signed up and have reupped, but the army needs to be larger. The long war will require shorter rotation periods. We're at war, we need to act like it.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
We need more men and materiel. This is a fight for the survival of Western Civilization and it can't be done on the cheap. I have family and friends in the Air Force and Navy and they're stretched beyond the breaking point.
As I said on another thread, if we can spend $185 million taxpayer dollars on the Superdome to make Katrina "victims" feel better, we can throw some more bucks toward the military, who are fighting WWIII.
I know IRR types who've been out for years who are about to get called back. I know two reservists who have left the reserves because they were sent to Iraq twice already and weren't about to go back for a third time. This is an all volunteer force, and people are going to start un-volunteering themselves in great numbers if the optempo keeps up beyond their ability to endure.
"Lean and mean" is a great slogan, but adequately manned and equipped is what wins wars.
I've asked many of them, personally- from officers to grunts. Not one of them believes the Army is big enough for the world we have today. This is purely anecdotal, mind you- but it's interesting because these are all of different political and MOS backgrounds. To a man, they say the Army needs more boots- and none of them want to see a draft.
Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhh!
You aren't allowed to speak trth if it can be construed by anyone as possibly critical to anyone in the administration, and by extention Bush.
Also, it would allow them to cut military pay further (to the point where the total amount spent would be lower even with the larger numbers), thus freeing up funds for more vote-buying boondoggles.
It's clear that we need more troops, because we're in for a long haul. The smaller, more lethal forces are great for a war that no one's going to take us up on, but for the wars we're likely to see, we simply need more boots.
Yep- and let's remember that we DID have a larger Army before Clinton cuts- when he arrived the army had 18 divisions, when he left there were 12.
"...In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore's purported "reinvention" of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts...."
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644
Those who don't learn from past mistakes as they say are doomed to repeat them. Here's one you won't read in in the papers. Gulf War One cost us a carrier. It was sent on three MED/IO deployments in three years bypassing needed yard maintenance. What's worse was it wasn't by any means the oldest carrier in the fleet either but rather the last Kitty Hawk class carrier built. Upon return from the third deployment it had a major explosion in a MMR and was towed Cold Iron into NNSY for a band-aid repair and another deployment of which was it's last. Thankfully no one was killed in that explosion.
To give a person some perspective on danger a leak in a 1200 PSI steam system the size of a #2 pencil lead can decapitate you. You can not hear the leak. Only a broom handle waved across piping can detect it. It's very serious business.
IF the Navy Nuke Propulsion Program is being ran like what they have done to the conventional carrier maintenance program then we will see some very serious ill effects as the result. Some buy into the myth as well that nukes can withstand extended deployments indefinitely. That simply is not true and their maintenance rotations are the same as conventionals in needed post deployment stand downs. The reactor core has the least to do with it. The axillary equipment as well as the turbines and 1200 PSI piping system must still be properly maintained the same as a conventional.
If not for 9/11 we would now have a Les Aspin Navy of 10 carriers which ones like Borda talked him out of. That number is still being pushed in the back ground by the Bush Administration.
That is what happened in Vietnam. The DOD was an idiot. Johnson never had a clear plan of action. And, Nixon soon lost his way and when he did have the N. Viets on the ropes, he didn't go for the juglar. He gave them a way out. That only embolden them. When they were about to capitulate, they got a second wind.
Many of the officers thought it was a game to increase their 'fruit salad.' And, the politicians, many of whom are still in office are just a spineless now as then.
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.