Top general: Army 'will break' without more troops

CNN ^ | Dec 14, 2006 | AP

[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.

[drellberg]

I'll add, since I don't have many opportunities, how much in awe I am of the folks who write on these matters, and the contributions so many have made to defend our country.

It never even occurred to me growing up to go into the military. It's not what folks ever did in the circles in which I was raised. But I keep telling my 15-year old son that though no one here will ever raise the prospect, nothing could make me prouder than for him to take that route.

[MagnoliaB]

"It's not the fighting capability of the American warfighter;
it's what the warfighter is given the latitude to do."

Exactly. The only reason we would need more troops is because we are trying to fight a PC war against barbarians instead of doing what needs to be done.

[allen08gop]

Rummy also addressed this recently.

The fact that putting more troops in country means they look like a domineering force versus part of a team to rebuild. Evidently, this issue was of far greater concern in the Middle East unlike postwar Germany and Japan.

[TexKat]

Good Morning America!

[TexKat]

Pull all of the US Military units out of Germany except for a couple Air Force units, Landstuhl medical center, and pre-positioning units. Pull Most troops out of South Korea, leave the Air Force and pre-positioning units. South Korea has a large standing army, with help from our Air Force and Navy North Korea isn't going to do anything. Pull every single US military member out of the Balkans. Voila! No more military shortage.

Wrong-o Tailback. I believe that Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker is already including your recommendation in the current count.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years

[Steel Wolf]

I think a big part of what you are saying is that we need to match the forces we have with appropriate missions.

Exactly right, and your point about scouts is absolutely correct. I had the pleasure of working with a former Cav scout my first time over, and he taught us (who were used to hoofing it everywhere) a great deal about running mounted convoys, and the associated skill sets. Adding more troops is important, but we need the right kinds of troops. We also need to not be shy about closing out MOSs and cross training people. In my line of work we've had a number of very obsolete jobs take years and years to close out. That lingering committment to useless structure is another reason we're so low on appropriate troop strength.

[Teacher317]

There is little Army left to fight them and in Iraq too

Umm, only 200,000 are in Iraq, out of a total force of 1.4 million. Saying there's "little left" is a bit disingenuous.

[Steel Wolf]

The total size of the Army is around 500k.

[TexKat]

http://www.army.mil/aps/06/03_ExecSum.html

See page V, Compelling Needs.

[Romish_Papist]

I'm 31 years old, spent 8 years on active duty in the USAF and just got back yesterday from the MEPS to go into the ANG. I was told I cannot join right now because my heart rate is a bit high. Blood pressure is fine, but my pulse is high.

They need bodies, I'm prior service, only 31, fully trained, ready to go, but because my pulse was fast I have to wait until I can get my heart rate/pulse to slow down a bit (exercise, no caffeine, no nicotine).

To be honest, and I say this with all due respect, if they need people, but keep blocking them for stupid reasons (such as mine) then I have no sympathy.

I still wish to serve, but I'll not empathize with the manning troubles they cry about whilst they reject people over little things.

[Romish_Papist]

A good way to keep Guard numbers increasing would be to stop the idiotic policy of losing a rank when you cross services to join the Guard.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

The problem isn't the number of troops, it's the grunt/REMF ratio that's all out of whack. In Iraq, the grunt/REMF ratio is as high as 1:70. That's 70 freakin' REMFs for every grunt that goes outside the wire. That's just totally unacceptable. A more appropriate ratio is 1:14. Here at Bagram AB, Afghanistan you can't help but trip over all the army guys on base every day. I don't even go to lunch because the lines are so long even with a 2.5 hour window. I don't know what they all do, but they certainly don't seem to go outside the wire. The army needs to streamline its operations so a greater proportion of the force is actual infantry.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! We have a winner here folks!

This is the problem, and it's existence is purely political.

FACT: The entire US Military has today more flag officers (that's Generals and Admirals, people) with a force structure of less than 1,000,000 than it did during WWII with 13 Million men in uniform. Why, in the age of desktop computers that can contain databases for the entire planet, do we need a logistical and command tail that large?

FACT: The excercise in Somolia detailed in Blackhawk Down had 12 general officers in theatre for 2,400 troops, only 1,200 of those being war fighters. The rest were "ash and trash troops" Hell, that's a small Colonel's command. What are Captains doing these days, Playing Corporal of the Guard?

Independent brigades??? that looks as if it's a plan to justify the existence of some more brigadier generals...must be a lot of colonels on the promotion lists and no slots for them.

[xzins]

Here are some of the realities that face us that are asked in these points:

1. Flag Officers. Many don't know that the pay of military members is tied to the pay of congressmen. No member of the military can make as much as a congressman. Therefore, they have to make less graduated down through some 24 ranks to private. Because of this, you have top-rate executives controlling billions in assets and managing world events who could be making six figures in the private world making a little bit more than a Wal-Mart store manager makes. I had a deputy group commander depart for the civilian world (a LTC) and he immediately began making 150 grand....more than a congressman at the time.

How does the military compensate? They can't give raises so they give promotions. They rely on extremely patriot but extremely qualified leaders to balance the low pay of a general with the extreme need of a nation.

2. Our company grade officers typically are the proud graduates of some university and probably some graduate school. Many have math, science type degrees and have extremely high technical skills. My son will graduate soon with an extremely high GPA in a special technology field....the salaries for newbies ranges from 60-80 to start. The army offers a new 2d Lieutenant about 35. Hmmmm...

3. Tooth to tail. Many also don't realize that the Army is the both the nations logistical and engineering firm. (Until there's a hurricane, that is.) Ever hear of flood control by the "Army Corps of Engineers?"

In any case, the Marines are specifically designed to be logistics light because typically, they are to be used no more than 50 miles from the coast. When they go more, what logistics arm to they rely upon....you guessed it...the US Army. Whose bulldozers make Air Force runways? Whose schools train Marine tankers?

And what does it truly take to move 5000 warriors across 2000 miles of terrain. (Ask Hitler about Stalingrad...it ain't easy.)

If one tank has a 500 gallon fuel capcity and gets gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon, then how many miles away from your tanks do you want your refuelers?

Then add in medical, beans, bullets, personal, mail, police, aviation, etc.

The whole point of any Army is that it must move huge distances with massive support to both conquer and occupy.

I think the current tooth to tail is about as suggested: 1 to 14 depending on whom you classify as warriors and who you classify as support.

[af_vet_rr]

Pull Most troops out of South Korea

Umm, how about no. Pulling American forces out of those areas would give North Korea and China a lot more breathing room than any of us want.

You do make valid points about pulling out troops from various other countries (and the General discusses this in his recommendations), however those countries will lobby against it, because it could hurt them economically. For better or for worse, some of those countries would do everything short of bribery (and I believe some would do that as well) to convince Congress and President Bush that those troops are needed there.

In some ways, I think the General was subtly appealing to the American people, because he knows that Congress and President Bush alone won't act on some things for various reasons, unless they are pressured from the people.

Normally a Congressman will listen to somebody who is waving a wad of cash in their direction, over somebody who is from his/her district or state (it sucks, but that's the way the lobbying/campaign contribution stuff works). If they think there are enough somebodies from their district/state who would be upset with them and vote for somebody else, then they'll listen to their constituents.

[af_vet_rr]

I would throw in, and you've mentioned this a bit, based on what I know from one of my children who is in the region (and flies into Iraq and Afghanistan quite often dealing with the supply chain), that we also have a serious issue where our supply columns are way out of whack because of the situation.

It's not like the wars of old when you had a front, and you had supplies running from the rear or ports all the way through protected areas up to the guy on the front line. Iraq is similar to Vietnam in that aspect - we have a lot of little fronts, and are having to move a lot of supplies into a lot of little areas that are very hazardous.

While I have no doubt that there are plenty of useless REMFs, from a logistics point of view, we get stretched very thing - convoy duties and the like do take up a lot of infantry/combat troops that could be performing more active/aggressive duties directly against the enemy, rather than have to act in a reactive manner, guarding convoys and bases.

[donmeaker]

Bear in mind we have 400,000 some Iraqi soldiers, with arabic language skills and familiarity with local customs.

We should plan to complement and supplement, not supplant that force.

[Bulldawg Fan]

There are only 500K plus soldiers in the Army. The 1.4 million is everyone in all the services on active duty. During and right after Desert Storm, there were 910K in the Army alone.

[91B]

True-but in fairness, guard members who go on active duty are often stripped of a rank. Guard members don't get promoted based on points-like their active duty counterparts-but on slots available and it can take quite a while to make rank in some units. It would be hard to recruit new guardsmen if they felt that they were always going to be a rank behind another soldier who came from active duty after a short hitch regardless of who was the better soldier. The whole promotions system in the guard stinks, but I don't have any better ideas.

[El Gato]

Now, what happens if Iran or North Korea decide to move???

Either not much, or their capitals and other major cities and facilities assume the temperature of the surface of the sun.