The Army We Need

The Weekly Standard ^ | June 4, 2007 | Tom Donnelly

[Kaslin]

[lepton]

Aye. It’s not that we needed a larger force to invade Iraq...It’s that we need a larger force. In regards Iraq, it is simply too long-term a task to rely so heavily on the NG and Reserves.

[StarCMC]

Bump for later and a ping.

[ClearCase_guy]

The three questions:

1) Should the military be expanded?
2) Should we be free to use our military?
3) Should we spend money to properly equip our military?

It is possible that the Democrats (Hillary, Obama) would answer "Yes" to #1. They say that's their answer. I don't believe them, but they may possibly mean it. But they would never answer that way to the other two questions.

[lepton]

But the experiences of the Bush years ought to have driven these fantasies from our minds. The idea that we can simply fight the way we would prefer to fight--rapidly, decisively, and from a distance--is no longer tenable.

Is that true? Did that form of warfare fail? Or to the extent we are having difficulties that are not simply domestic squabbling, is it that we needed one set of forces to win the war, and another set of forces for the occupation? Generally, soldiers do not make good police; and police do not make good soldiers. Their points and purposes are different.

[M1Tanker]

Bump for later

[stylin19a]

he says we don't need a draft, but the whole article screams : DRAFT

We do not need a draft, and indeed it would be criminal to send a hastily trained, short-service, conscript force to patrol the streets of Falluja or the hills of Helmand province.

draftees could be in support, rather than combat roles....

[alloysteel]

This is but a disguised argument for replicating the military posture we maintained while we were engaged in Viet Nam, and to do that, we shall have to re-institute the draft.

Which provides an excellent vehicle for arousing protests both here at home and abroad, and also gives cover to “war protester” draft dodgers and deserters. The Democraticans have just not been able to gain much traction in organizing these protest demonstrations, and now, they have even lost Cindy Sheehan.

So they need a new mechanism to whip up enthusiasm for “change”, to justify their continued transformation of America. The draft is a perfect vehicle is compelling that continued change. Reluctant soldiers who don’t want to be there in the first place, combined with the fear of being dragged into some fight in which you have no interest in participating, all assure a large indigeous mob dedicated to anarchy and disrespect for the law.

[68skylark]

he says we don't need a draft, but the whole article screams : DRAFT

Oh please -- in the early 1980's we had an all-volunteer active duty force that was twice the size we have now. We could go back to that size of all-volunteer force again today if we wanted to. A draft is completely unncessary -- which is lucky for us because it's a bad idea also.

[TChris]

IMHO, a robust, well-trained, well-supplied, strong military should be Job #1 for the federal government. Many (most?) of their other "jobs" should be severely curtailed or cut entirely to be left to individual states. National defense is one area that should be permanently strong.

We could start by chopping off the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the IRS (Fair Tax baybeee!), National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, NPR, congressional pensions for convicts, the Ad Council, reimbursements to the ACLU and funding for the U.N.

There's plenty of money to do what the feds really ought to do.

[Little Ray]

Our military is just fine. Its the internal enemies and the lack of will on the part of the public that creates an issue. That is what undercuts “sustainability.”

Sun Tzu called it “moral law.”

[Griddlee]

he says we don't need a draft, but the whole article screams : DRAFT

Better to have a regiment of Marines than an Army of draftees.

"there are not enough Chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment"---Chesty Puller

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Yo-Yo]

Hillary and Obama calling for a larger Army while at the same time calling for us to pull out of Iraq.

As I recall, it was having a huge army doing nothing but sitting around at US bases that gave the DemocRATs the idea of cutting the Armed Forces in the first place.

How long would a President Hillary or Obama still be willing to fund a larger Army that did nothing but polish their belt buckles?

[oneolcop]

The reinstitution of the draft would bring with it severe problems; the active resistance of the current crop of youth, ie: the draftees; the wage disparities, ie: Are we paying the professional army the same wages as the draftees as in times past? The return of the bad ol' days of mothers "sending their babies" to war just to mention the issues that come immediately to mind.

Personally, I believe that the solution is to pay the soldiers and marines MUCH more (like 50% more) and attract additional volunteers.

Another solution might be to resurrect the concept of 'collective guilt" wherein a country is punished as a whole, as in the 2nd world war when we bombed the German cities to rubble and fire bombs killed more Japanese than the two atomic bombs. In other words, significant portions of Iraq, Iran, etc. would become "camel parking lots" after they cooled off.

[Fraxinus]

"there are not enough Chinamen in the world to stop a fully armed Marine regiment"---Chesty Puller

Mao's reply - I don't think you have that much ammo.

I agree we need a larger military, next argument, how should it be equipped?
Strictly my opinion:2-3 "Heavy" divisions equipped with heavy high speed mobile firepower (tanks, IFvs, mobile artillery, etc);5-6 "Medium" divisions equipped with medium weight vehicle but still a lot of firepower with slightly longer deployment times (strykers, towed artillery, hummers, etc); 2-3 "light" divisions that can be moved about the world very quickly, but do not carry a lot of heavy equipment, (little vehicular equipment other than Hummers and most of the other stuff can be carried inside of a Hummer).

[Joe 6-pack]

We need to get rid of the micromanagement from Washington. Civilian control of the military is absolutely critical in our society; however, civilian leaders need to get a little more studied on where to draw the line between directing their strategic goals and not interfering with the execution of things purely military (i.e. ROE in the WOT, denial of armor/ AC130s in Somalia, etc.)

Any commander, military or civilian, who assigns a mission is responsible for resourcing that mission, be it in manpower, equipment, training, etc. If a subordinate commander indicates that they are not adequately resourced, the higher headquarters is responsible for either providing the additional resources requested, finding a new subordinate commander who believes they can execute with the current resources or scrubbing the mission altogether. I think it's been decades since our civilian leadership grasped this concept.

Oh, we also need more Generals like this:

[familyop]

Nominate Duncan Hunter, and we’ll get the army that we need. Indulge in fantasies, and we won’t.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Why don’t we just increase the military to a billion kajillion? We don’t need an army larger than the WW2 one to fight cavemen. We just need to fight smart.