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.

[Prost1]

Charlie Rangle has it right.

Reinstate the draft! Make it mandatory for all men and women 18 years to serve. No 4fers or similar dis-qualifiers.

Make them serve. Serving develops civic pride or hatred. But it develops usually a motivated political individual. That is what makes republics secure. People who understand and support their government.

We cannot continue with 40% turn-out dictating the government for the rest of the USA.

We need the draft. All must serve in some capacity! Not just as Monikas but as civil servants and soldiers.

Just my thoughts...

[El Gato]

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.

Well, we had no troops in Japan proper until after the surrendered, so any troops at all was an increase. In Germany we were sending folks home ASAP, leaving those with "not enough points" to form the occupation forces. My father was one of those. Other than confiscating a few caches of small arms, including knives, hunting with their Garands, and fishing with hand grenades, he never talks about any combat operations after the surrender. There were some, but not many, and were virtually none in Japan. When their God-Emperor said "surrender", they surrendered.

The Iraqi situation, starting with "foreign fighters" has been totally different.

[El Gato]

Whose bulldozers make Air Force runways?

Mostly Air Force Red Horse units. Unless you mean in the US, then it's contractors, but they are under contract to the Army Corps of Engineers.

[El Gato]

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.

That doesn't always happen. It depends on the available slots in that particular Guard unit, or at least in that particular state, since states can fiddle with their authorizations between units.

I went from active duty, to reserve, then to guard, then a 3-4 year break, and then back to reserve (I'm of course speaking of participating/selected reserve, I was in active reserve the whole time. I wasn't in the Guard long enough to be promoted, and wasn't yet eligible when I went reserve the first time. The second time, I was promoted as soon as I'd served one year, and they backdated the Date of Rank, with back pay as well.

[endthematrix]

http://www.medicalreservecorps.gov/About

[allen08gop]

So he was one of the U.S. Constabulary forces back then?

That must have been an interesting job.

My dad was an editor of Stars & Stripes in Honolulu. The point system problem, as in don't mention any increases to same in order to prevent more soldiers from going home, was driven home by none other than a most displeased Fleet Admiral Nimitz himself. He brought the entire S&S editorial board in and chewed them out for printing a rumor.

That is one meeting he never forgot being a sgt. in the army and talking to a living god :-)

[Romish_Papist]

Actually as far as the Air National Guard is concerned, if you're coming from active duty, you don't lose a rank. But yes, if you go to Active from Guard you lose a rank.