Posted on 12/14/2006 5:55:20 PM PST by KantianBurke
WASHINGTON (AP) -- As President Bush weighs new strategies for Iraq, the Army's top general warned Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years. Though he didn't give an exact number, he said it would take significant time, commitment by the nation, noting some 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year.
Officials also need greater authority to tap the National Guard and Reserve, long ago set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces, Schoomaker told a commission studying possible changes in those two forces. "Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand ... is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing.
"At this pace ... we will break the active component" unless more reserves can be called up to help, Schoomaker said in prepared remarks.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Schoomaker said Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several military options for the war, including shifting many troops from combat missions to training Iraqi units.
The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq, if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I don't have '60 data at hand, but in '62 the military budget was 9.3% of GDP and entitlements were 6.1% of GDP. It was probably a little bit more lopsided in '60, the last Ike budget year. Data from the Air Force Association
By comparison the 2006 military budget was 4.0% with entitlements at 11.8%. That 4.0% is up from 3.0% in '99 '00 and '01. However total active duty military actually dropped from '00 to '06, 1.384M to 1.362M. Reserve forces dropped from 865K to 849K. Army was flat, Air Force slightly down, Marines slightly up and Navy way down. Direct Hire Civilians were also down about 1.5%.
Air Force is slated to lose a few 10s of thousands in the next couple of years. Army to gain about the same, but lose civilian employees. Support Contractors will also be reduced.
Heh, I've never met you, but I'd love to buy you a beer! Have no fear, the guys 20-30 I've worked with have the same fire and spirit you do, but are more than a bit shackled by ROE now. I hope that changes soon.
On a similar note, one of our Flight Surgeons is 55, and we just retired a guy at 57 who flew F16s until 2005! Old don't mean soft, it means "seen lots of young welps get whupped!"
As you pointed out, we had 8 (80%) more divisions in '91. We hadn't had a draft since the mid '70s. Today's population is larger too, although I'm not sure the military age population is, unless you count illegal aliens.
We Could do it.
What was the objective given to Rumsfeld and the DoD prior to the invasion of Iraq? Their objective was to defeat the Iraqi Army and overthrow Saddam. They accomplished both of those objectives in record time with unprecedented success. The Iraqi military ceased to exist and Saddam was found in a rat hole and is currently sentenced to death. There can be no debate on those points. The mission was accomplished.
Flash forward three years. The enemy we are currently fighting is not the enemy we destroyed. That point seems to be lost on the American public. We currently find ourselves fighting an insurgency that has proven itself far more effective in its ability to manipulate world media and opinion than its ability successfully attack our military. Iraq is not secure because it sits right in the middle of a cesspool of terrorist states whose primary focus right now is to humiliate the United States. In all likelihood, we would be faced with this problem regardless of how many troops we employed in our initial invasion or the period afterward. I'm currently sitting in a hotel in Oakland. In this large American city, there are neighborhoods where cops won't go. Yet, somehow, we expect one of the most volatile regions of the world to look like Geneva, Switzerland. It isn't going to happen quickly, no matter how many troops we pour into Iraq. The French proved that in Vietnam and we later confirmed it for them. The Soviet's proved it again in Afghanistan and have continued to prove it in Chechnya. And if we'd like, we can prove it again in Iraq. Hopefully, we won't take that path because it is a sure loser. To defeat an insurgency you have to change the environment and culture in which they operate. And again, as we proved in Vietnam and the Soviets proved in Afghanistan, that doesn't mean bombing the countryside into talcum powder. It takes time, money, patience and the will to win. We can do it if we want. But far too many of our politicians and media wonks have too much invested in our failure. And as of 7 November 2006, they are the side that is currently winning.
I got out of the Navy October 80 turning down $15K and next rank. In late 1982 I tried to go back in. The recruiters weren't interested and I had a good recommendation for enlistment and a good record. I may be wrong but as far as I know from the end of 1981-1989 the ranks were pretty much filled even on a Cold War posture.
Relative to what it was in the early '70s, and adjusted for inflation, it's not so bad now. Compared to other what similar demographics make in the civilian world, it's low, but not all that low. I'm surrounded by soldiers, some pretty young, with a kid or two each and they live in as big or bigger houses than mine, which is the smallest model that the builder built in this area. Nothing fancy, but nice and not too small. All less than 3 years old too.
Still you can never pay someone too much to get shot at, or have people trying to blow them up.
The Navy provides a lot of the support (tail) for the Marines.
And that was the second time in my adult life we've gone down that road. I got "Clintonsized" (laid off) myself due to the consolidations in the defense industry driven and encouraged by The Impeached One. Might happen again, the outfit I support in the Army is going to cut contracts by 10%, and that was *before* the 'Rats won the election, we were told about it on election day. Meanwhile my division lost a major (to us) contract that we were the incumbent on (not a support contract, we'd done the development of the first phase, and then somebody underbid us on the second phase) leaving about 1/2 the folks on "overhead". We'll find the fallout from that next week, I hope, but that's back at the home office, the contract I'm on is good for next calendar year anyway).
Now the "Rat's are going for the third round in my adult life. I don't forsee a rosy future for the military, the defense industry that supports it, or for the country itself.
But the country will get Military quality health care. Lucky us.
It always has been, and likely always will be. It's actually not as bad as Health and Human Services, or Treasury. Lower cost overruns that Transportation too.
With the 'Rats in control of the purse strings, especially all those left over '60s radicals and the crooks, in their "leadership", they will, and then some. Even the Bush plans had cuts in FY08 and beyond.
Schoomaker speaking now on C-SPAN2
Air Force reserve units once used to say something like."Old age, experience and treachery will beat youth and enthusiasm every time", when they'd whup up on active duty forces flying better aircraft.
Everything tactical in the Army runs on JP-4. Simplifies the heck out of fuel logistics. Air Force and Navy Aircraft can burn it too.
They were indeed. That's also the time frame I ended a break in my reserve/guard service and re entered the active reserve. They were so full by '86 they could let me go because I couldn't keep my weight down to their level (at their max, I looked like a scarecrow, and I've got pictures to prove it). When I got a waiver, less than a year later, there were no open slots and that was that for me. It hurt really bad to watch my compadres called up for Desert Shield/Storm a few years later.
I got one eye, high blood pressure, and some. But I can still shoot, drive, fix electronics equipment, and look at women! Not bad for a retired electrical engineer!
I rather be shot by a jealous husband at the age of 106!
Now, what happens if Iran or North Korea decide to move???
I would respectfully disagree with you.
Yes, the toppling of Saddam's regime was spectacular in its swiftness, but violence metastized in the post-invasion phase because we did not have enough troops to secure the country, IMO.
The militia problem has spiralled so dramatically because Sunnis and Shias terrified of being killed by each other have turned to communal militia groups for the security that legitimate authorities have been unable to provide. The logical conclusion of that spiral is civil war.
To make the new Iraq work, the primary good required was security. That was our responsibility and so far we've failed.
I know hindsight is always 20-20, but shouldn't we have put enough forces in country to deal with the possibility that foreign fighters and dead-enders would do their utmost to tear the new Iraq apart?
Our troops get overrun as much of our early reaction forces positioned in Okinawa are already in Iraq.
That, and the South Korean youth population cheers with delight as their beloved Kim Jong-Il comes to rescue them from the 'vile American scum' infesting their country.
I have a question. Bit of a change of subject but relevant, I think. President Bush this week said that 5900 insurgents have been killed or captured in Iraq over 2 months. Assuming this number is not an abberation, and doing some back of the envelope calculations, it's hard to extrapolate such that the US has not killed or captured at least 250,000 of the enemy just in Iraq before the US could ever withdraw. If I include Afghanistan, Lebanon, revenge killings within Iraq, etc., it's quite easy to conjure up body counts exceeding 500,000, from 2002 through 2008.
I'm a lone conservative in a family, town, and state filled with libs. I never see the MSM report on our progress. I know body counts are an imprecise measure. But I don't know what other metrics to use. Still, I figure that this is a war of attrition that we can't "win" in any conventional way, at least as long as we don't invade Iran, Pakistan, etc. But I'm at a loss to understand why everyone at this point -- everyone -- considers this military effort a debacle. And I don't understand how the bad guys can sustain these kind of losses indefinitely.
You folks all seem so knowledgeable. Maybe you can help me understand ... why is this effort such a loss?
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.