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.

[miliantnutcase]

You're my hero.

[miliantnutcase]

Not to mention our Navy needs another 300 ships.

[miliantnutcase]

You know what Patton would say right now.
"Give me gasoline and I can be in Tehran in 48 hours.".

[patton]

I take it from your name, you were in the division? I was in B/3/325. 2BDE 82 ABD.

Note to folks on this thread - the army currently measures combat strength in Combat Brigades. That is a throwback to a looong time ago - it was brigades (hence brigadier general), then divisions, then unit of action, then regiments, and now, brigades, again. I may have the order wrong, who can keep track. ;)

So juxtapose how many combat brigades we have, vice how many are in combat.

[Torie]

Thanks for post. I appreciate it. What does a private in the army earn? What does a sergeant earn, regarding whom there is a shortage that is causing the army to sweat bullets per an article in the WSJ? Another issue is the shortage of highly trained professional troops to embed with Iraqi troops. which requires a lot of skills beyond the ability to shoot straight, like language, diplomacy, etc.

[patton]

It ain't the money, Torie - not, at least, in the short term. It is the future. Companies all over the world are lining up to hire these guys.

[91B]

I think a big part of what you are saying is that we need to match the forces we have with appropriate missions. For instance, we were a squadron in an ACR (now we're the brigade RSTA) and in the desert we were given a mostly rural AO with the primary task of regular route clearance on Highway 2. We (and here I'm talking about our regiment) had a very high rate of finding IEDs before they were set off-about 70%, highest in the division AO-because scouts are taught how to do route clearance and it is the kind of task our guys had prepared for for years-I know this becuase the 3rd squadron commander (now the regimental commander) wrote a long article about our performance in our regimental newsletter right before we left theater.

Still I think we might have had a bigger impact on the war effort looking for stuff crossing the border from Iran or Syria. Scouts are taught a lot of counter-infiltration stuff too. OIF III was about 40% guard troops and I couldn't make much sense over how we were deployed, it seemed to me that a lot of units were just plugging holes without much consideration given to their respective strengths.

[patton]

Thank you for your service, Scout. Now go paint my "X". LOL.

[91B]

"Brigade Units of Action" is the term that is commonly used now and it is a way of reshuffling the deck to get more bang from the force we have at hand. It's a good enough idea, but it doesn't preclude having a bigger force. The regular Army is supposed to have 42 or 43 brigades, while the guard will have 33 or 34, unless cuts which have been floated become a reality.

There are three types of maneuver units: Heavy-which has combined Armor, Infantry and Engineer battalions, Light-more or less just infantry and Stryker. All have some artillery which is being combined in many cases with air defense for "FIRES" battalions and the support units will now be "plug and play" to a large extent.

[91B]

Not a scout-just wear the funny hat (Iraq was my "spur ride"). I wouldn't go back to a non-combat unit though, I enjoy being the doc for combat troopies.

[patton]

You should see my funny hat. Now, how many combat brigades do we have, and how many are in combat?

Houston, we have a problem....

[armymarinemom]

I have no idea what we need for numbers but I do know that repeated deployments are taking their toll on our troops. Heck, it's taking a toll on my own family.
After talking to our troops coming and going for the past four years the one thing everyone agrees on is that we need a larger army.
Sadly we voted in Democrats who will only use fatigue as an excuse to cut and run. They will make us appear weak and then freak out and try to bring back the draft once we are attacked again.

[cva66snipe]

I volunteer Sir! is our regimental motto :-).

Yep sure nough was. I wore the three river patch myself from 1984-85. 13B Suicide Jockey in a Howitzer Battery.

[El Gato]

"At this pace ... we will break the active component" unless more reserves can be called up to help, Schoomaker said in prepared remarks.

And if you call up reserves at higher pace, you'll break the reserves too. Some have already been called up for year long deployments, sometimes less, sometimes more, more than once.

[sgtyork]

The pay charts are readily available. Try Military.com or Army Times. These are very informative sites, you should educate yourself.

I believe that we agree that the Army is too small. That doesn't give you the green light to pity soldier's pay without knowledge of the facts. These are two very different issues. Also, if you want to cite an WSJ article, why not try posting a link so that we can all verify or refute your description?

As a veteran who was forced out as part of the peace dividend, this subject is one regarding which I am somewhat bitter. We had an army 1/3 bigger than now under Reagan and our subsequent political leadership saw dollar signs instead of security.

[Torie]

The link won't work, if I could find it, because the WSJ is pay site. You can assume I made it up, or consider my characterization of the article fair and balanced, or something inbetween. I won't take it personally.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

What difference does it make if we send 100,000 or 200,000 more troops to the field to be target practice for muslims. If we aren't going top dominate them, we need to get out.

[Rokke]

I think you raise several excellent points, and I can't disagree with any of them. Having said that, it was interesting to watch the parallel advances of the 1 MEF and the V Corps toward Baghdad. Both were essentially engaging in a role traditionally handled and trained for by the Army. But clearly, the 1 MEF was up to the task, and accomplished its half of the mission with great efficiency, despite a tradition of being an expeditionary force. Of the two, they seem to have the ability to flex to a greater extent, despite (or maybe as a result of) being traditionally underfunded, "undermanned" and under equipped.

[cva66snipe]

The "peace dividend" ain't paying dividneds any more. We need 5 more divisions. Period. End of story. The democrats and Americans want to sacrifice? Well they can sacrifice by paying the Regular Army guys with good wages and a return to the old GI bill and by cutting spending on illegals and shirkers.

My company in basic was one of the last to get the old GI Bill. It saved my hide during the 1982 recession. I was able to go back to school and work for the VA on a work study program and a local National Cemetery.

If anybody wants the number on past active duty End Troop Strengths as far back as 1998 I have them. The truth is we're operating on a 1996 level. The troops aren't gonna hold up to much more nor will the equipment at the current rate of deployments. The GOP congress ignored the problem for 10 years and the DEM's most likely won't do us any better either.

[cva66snipe]

7 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.1588.ENR]

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2004, as follows:
(1) The Army, 482,400.
(2) The Navy, 373,800. currently Active Duty: 381,135
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 359,300

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as of September 30, 2004, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 85,900.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 107,030.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 75,800.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.

SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of September 30, 2004, the following number of Reserves to be serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components:

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 25,599.
(2) The Army Reserve, 14,374.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 14,384.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 12,191.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 1,660.

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2002, as follows:
(1) The Army, 480,000.
(2) The Navy, 376,000.
(3) The Marine Corps, 172,600.
(4) The Air Force, 358,800.
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as of September 30, 2002, as follows:

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 87,000.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,558.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 108,400.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 74,700.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000.

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) The House bill contained a provision (sec. 401) that would authorize end strengths for the active forces, as indicated in the table below: Service Fiscal year 1998-- Request Recommendation

Army 495,000 495,000
Navy 390,802 395,000
Marine Corps 174,000 174,000
Air Force 371,577 381,000
Total 1,431,379 1,445,000

The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 401) that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1998, as shown below: Fiscal year-- 1997 authorization 1998 request 1998 recommendation

Army: 495,000 495,000 485,000
Navy: 407,318 390,802 390,802
Marine Corps: 174,000 174,000 174,000
Air Force: 381,000 371,577 371,577
The House recedes with an amendment that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1998 as shown below: Fiscal year-- 1997 authorization 1998 request 1998 authorization

Army 495,000 495,000 495,000
Navy 407,318 390,802 390,802
Marine Corps 174,000 174,000 174,000
Air Force 381,100 371,577 371,577
Total 1,457,418 1,431,379 1,431,379

1998 authorization for end strength active duty

Army 495,000
Navy 390,802
Marines 174,000
Air Force 371,577

1998 authorization for end strength reserves

ARNG 366,516
USAR 208,000
USNR 94,294
USMCR 42,000
ANG 107,377
USAFR 73,431
USCGR 8000