Army Stretched Thin & Defchief not budging from opposition to expanding the size of the military

The Christian Science MOnitor& San Francisco Chronicle ^ | January 13&14 04 | Monitor Editorial &ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

[inPhase]

Taking on critics in Congress who say America needs a bigger Army, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the military is under strain but he is not yet convinced a permanent expansion is in the best interests of the Pentagon or taxpayers.

[inPhase]

It's a double header...

[kaktuskid]

Pull em out of Europe and S Korea...problem solved!

[91B]

8 1/2 of the Army's 10 divisions will have been involved in Iraq by the time the next troop rotation takes place (and 4 or 5 NG brigades) and Rumsfeld still doesn't believe that we need more troops?

Starting to lose patience...

[inPhase]

I go with Congressman Duncan Hunter's assessment that we need a larger ground force. He is Chairman of the HASC.

The case is not one of needing troops only for "spikes" but to be ready come what may and especially since we are obviously in a "stretched" Army situation and giving the rest of the world a lot of credit to behave.

[Loc123]

I believe re-configuring the military is the answer.

If we did away with certain support functions that civilians could perform we could make more ground troops available while maintaining the current numbers.

Offer tax breaks and contracts to corportations/companies that privately supply these civil functions.

Rumsfeld is a very intelligent man; I don't believe we are maintaining current levels for political reasons.

[inPhase]

I doubt very much that the problem is solved by pulling out of S. Korea or Europe (which is in the plan Congress is using to call for more troops.)

Clinton decimated Army, need to rebuild a large ground force, obviously.

Pull the money out of the major league will never work technologies, cut billions to Lockheed, Boeing, Carlyl and all of their defense entitlements; contracts with no deliverables which abound.

[inPhase]

I am not a supporter of Rumsfeld and his half baked crew. Too many mistakes.

[Loc123]

Such as?

[inPhase]

among the least given publicity (and you jest... "rose petals" greetings?)

is the abolishment of the Iraqi Army, acknowledged by all to have been a mistake
See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3239166.stm
Garner admits US errors in Iraq

Good audio. I fully admire General Garner.

[inPhase]

Loc

it is not just about the Iraq war or just Afghanistan or Terrorism

these are add ons. We need to be in an alert state, strong defense.

Sec Rumsfeld has a well known or rather widely discussed -- perceived as a grudge against Army. The Rumsfeld Commision Report published for President Clinton (yep) has a plan in it to go special ops, high tech, space/air force.

Isn't working. We need boots, trained boots on the ground.

Sec Def gambled on the wrong technologies, billions to boondoggles. While there is good stuff around --now, just not sexy or so I have heard.

[XJarhead]

It would take at least a couple of years to increase troops strength by enlarging military end strength. You've got to ratchet up recruitment, and then you've got to train them. And its not like all those extra troops can be run through in one massive training cycle. It would take a lot of time.

The thing that is causing the current crunch is the high committment of troops to Iraq. And honestly, whatever the rhetoric, I think its very unlikely that's going to continue for more than another year. We've already committed to elections, and a return of sovereignity to Iraq in 2004. Once Iraq is "sovereign", we can't stay there except at their express invitation. And no Iraqi government is going to be able to maintain credibility if it lets large numbers of U.S. troops stay.

So, they're going to ask us to leave, probably in late summer/early fall of next year. Troops are going to start returning, and I'll bet that less than half the current number will be in country by Jan. 1, 2005. The personnel crunch will be ending, and be completely over not long after that. Right about time those two extra divisions would have come online....

The good thing is that the images of large numbers of returning troops and the apparent end of significant involvement in Iraq isn't going to hurt Dubya one little bit.

[91B]

They've already had three years since the current administration took office and two years plus since 9/11. Some of us figured that W would take dramatic steps like Reagan to imporve the force. We're still waiting.

[inPhase]

That sounds like a smooth operation and I think everyone has those kinds of wishes. I agree I expect to see troop reduction in Iraq.

But it is not so simple. Those mullahs or whatever their clergy are called are fueling up storms as we speak. They are rejecting any form of election or representation that eliminates them as the feifdoms of SWA.

And I strongly believe that we need to boost up our troop strength, you are right -- start now. Iraq is an aside as is terrorism in the global game of -- well remember the cold war?
Think China...

[Loc123]

Which technologies are disfunct?

Rumsfeld fought the Crusader and is opting for a more 21st century Army. If we take my advice: eliminate certain support functions and increase infantry numbers--then we will have the necessary boots to project high power.

Also, Rumsfeld's lighter, faster, meaner approach to the Op: Iraqi Freedom worked like a charm. The occupation could have been improved, but I don't think the invasion could have.

Keep in mind that the military went into relative statis during the 90s; Rumsfeld has to work with that.