Rumsfeld rejects case for boosting size of Army

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, August 6, 2003 | By Jim Mannion

[JohnHuang2]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sharply questioned yesterday whether the Army needs to be larger, despite warnings from its top generals that the 480,000-strong force has been "stretched" by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With nearly 150,000 U.S. troops needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future and 10,000 more in Afghanistan, questions have been raised about U.S. military readiness if faced with a war in North Korea or elsewhere.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, August 6, 2003

Quote of the Day by Paleo Conservative

[Naspino]

I would venture that one nuke = 100,000 men.

[Thud]

ping

[Voice in your head]

In Baghdad now - leavng soon! There is definitely a need for more combat soldiers. It requires a lot of manpower to conduct stability and support operations - much more so than combat. It would be easy to kill everyone in this city - it would actually be kind of enjoyable. However, that is not our mission. Our mission is to maintain a safe and secure environment to allow a new government to take hold and the new economy to grow, so that Iraq and become a viable and sovereign state. For that, we definitely need more combat soldiers. Rotations here are putting such stress on seasoned soldiers due to family seperation, that experienced soldiers are going to leave the Army, resulting in 2 problems: 1) we lose their experience and skill; 2) we have less people in the Army. However, given Rumsfeld's alternatives to increasing the 480,000 man ceiling - improving the teeth to tail ratio in our military - I think he's on the right path. The support personnel here are pretty useless. They don't resupply us, they don't fix our damaged equipment, and they are the ones always getting ambushed. So get rid of them and replace them with combat troops. We've done pretty well getting our own resupply on the local economy, rigging our equipment to get it to work, and we're getting better at policing up the support personnel - telling them to put on their damn helmets and interceptor vests and pull security. SECDEF has the right idea, IMO. I just hope that he is able to implement the plan. Otherwise, we need a bigger Army.

[xzins]

As a recent army retiree, and a strong admirer of Rumsfeld during the Afghan and Iraq campaign, I'm certain that he is WRONG on this one.

I know Army families and they're ready to break.

Rumsfeld talks about "fighting" another war and the ability to do so WITHOUT mentioning the number of troops needed to maintain peace in that hypothetical war zone once that war is over.

Shifting troops from Kosovo/Bosnia is no solution because the issue is how often can you ride the horse and put it away wet before the horse breaks down.

They have decreed the tour of duty in Iraq to be ONE YEAR. Korea is ONE YEAR. (Time away from family.) 3-4 Divisions in Iraq, 1 in Afghanistan, 1/2 in Kosovo/Bosnia, 1 in Korea, and other pieces scattered around the world. There are only 10 divisions in the entire Army

If you make it one year gone and one year home or you make it one year gone and 2 years home, you are going to fail to re-enlist troops and once the word gets out, you're going to fail to ENLIST new troops.

There will be a troop morale and fitness breakdown starting in 2 years and lasting until the army gets right-sized.

And all of this is because Rumsfeld's ego (or political money-counters [karl rove?] behind the scenes) won't permit him to admit he's wrong. It's too bad, 'cause he's smarter than that.

[goldstategop]

Its more than politics for Rummy. He really believes in the more with less philosophy. In the old days any one who thought we could win a war in Iraq with an army half the strength of the one we fielded in 1991 would have said its crazy and couldn't be done. I'm sure Kim Il Jong, the North Korean dictator, isn't laughing at the U.S military prowess. We could take his country apart in a fraction of the time we fought the last war in Korea back in the 50s and he knows it.

[xzins]

The Army is more than the "fighting force." They are also the "occupying force." This is clearly evident in Iraq and Afghanistan AND Kosovo/Bosnia (continuing) AND S. Korea (still...after all these years.)

This is evidenced in recent Stars & Stripes articles on the "return" of Marine Expeditionary Units, Air Force Wings, and Naval Task Forces.

These return without replacement.

The Army isn't mentioned. They aren't "returning." They are being replaced by other units.

The Army stays when the others go home. That's why they need to be far larger. (Not to mention, 3 extra divisions needed as a new "Border Guard" to protect ensure the security of our borders.)

[Britton J Wingfield]

I agree. Small and lethal is great for crushing another army, but not for peacekeeping. We are stuck with peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan for the time being.