Army Must Be Larger Or Do Less, Says Ex-Joint Chiefs Head

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | October 4, 2003 | By Jack Kelly, Post-Gazette National Security Writer

[mark502inf]

The U.S. Army must be enlarged or its commitments scaled back, according to retired Gen. Henry Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997-2001.

"The Army cannot sustain the operations tempo they currently have," Shelton said in a telephone interview this week. "The Army currently has 232,000 soldiers deployed overseas. You cannot sustain 232,000 with an active force of only 485,000."

Shelton will discuss the war on terror and peacekeeping in Iraq at a banquet sponsored by the Pittsburgh chapter of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants on Oct. 21. A telephone interview with reporters was set up in advance of his Pittsburgh visit.

Despite the strain on the Army, the war on terror is going well, Shelton said, cautioning that victory is years away and many dangers lie ahead.

"A great thing President Bush has done is he is focusing all elements of national power, and that's what it takes to defeat terrorists," he said. "Too often we have tended to focus too much just on the military."

Shelton supports the measures taken to protect homeland security, as well, but suggested al-Qaida will likely mount another attack on U.S. soil. "It's not a matter of if we'll get hit again," he said. "It's a matter of when." Shelton said he is most worried about attacks on U.S. computer networks or with chemical or biological agents.

Shelton praised President Bush's emphasis on preventive military action, saying, "You've got to keep the terrorists on the run." But he differentiated between U.S. action against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was much less important in the war on terror than was destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, he said.

"Afghanistan is a great example of how a lawless region provides terrorists a safe haven. Iraq was not in that same vein. There is no clear evidence that Saddam was harboring terrorists."

Shelton said the war in Iraq was well executed, "but the followup isn't being done as well." Now that Saddam has been overthrown, it is critical the peacekeeping mission succeed so Iraq does not become what Afghanistan was, he said.

Shelton, now president of international operations for MIC Industries of Reston, Va. , refused to answer questions about his relationship with retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark, the Democratic presidential candidate who was NATO military commander when Shelton was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Clark was relieved of his command several months before his tour was scheduled to end for reasons which have never been publicly disclosed.

In response to a question at a forum in California Sept. 12, Shelton said: "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."

That prompted a flurry of media inquiries, but Shelton has refused to elaborate.

Clark was quoted as responding, "I've never heard anything about these integrity and character issues, and to be honest with you, I always liked Hugh Shelton and there's no explanation for it. The only thing I can say is we did have professional disagreements and obviously, for him, they became personal disagreements. For me, they were professional."

[mark502inf]

General Shelton is 100% right about the size of the Army. Unfortunately, although it is the largest service, it has the smallest budget overall & has a much, much smaller procurement budget than the other services. And procurement dollars are the basis of contracts & jobs in congressional districts. However unneeded more attack subs and fighter planes are, they will get priority over the much more necessary, but non-glamorous and non-pork producing expansion of Army force structure.

Note Clark's response to Shelton's earlier comments on his character.

[Support Free Republic]

---

	The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is unavailable.
Please try the following: If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. Open the www.freerepublic.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want. Click the Back button to try another link. Click Donate to help support the best site on the web. Face it, you don't want to sit down to start freeping someday, only to see... HTTP 404 - File not found

---

[RebelBanker]

As always, the Active Army types ignore the Army Reserve and Army National Guard when counting troops. Reserve component soldiers cost about 1/3 of what active forces cost and units can generally be deployed with little more effort than would be required for a comparable active unit.

Your humble servant...

[bc2]

Here is a novel idea: how about not being the world's police under the guise of "protecting our interests"... which is what caused 9-11-01 and will be the cause of the next horrific terrorist tragedy.

Doesn't anyone ever read the Constitution anymore? Doesn't anyone understand the meaning of "entangling alliances"?

[Future Snake Eater]

Note Clark's response to Shelton's earlier comments on his character.

I note that Clark is trying to sound the "bigger man," but I've met Shelton twice, once when he still head of the JCS and again after he had retired. From what I've seen of Clark, he doesn't hold a candle to the honesty and integrity of Hugh Shelton.

[El Conservador]

although it is the largest service

Isn't the Marine Corps the largest armed service???

I think Marine numbers go around 600.000

[Justin Thyme]

Marine Corps is the smallest of the 4 major services. When I got out in 1994, I believe we were in the process of scaling back to 155,000 from about 175,000. Quite small, really.

[mark502inf]

Isn't the Marine Corps the largest armed service??? I think Marine numbers go around 600.000

There are about 175,000 in the Marine Corps. Your 600,000 number is probably based on the number of photographers & press officers they take with them.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I think that the politicians are starting to see why grunts will always be the backbone of the military. IMHO, the Army needs to be expanded by about 50% to about 750,000 active duty members.

[mark502inf]

Two problems with your comments on the reserves. First, although your cost & deployment figures are OK for simple organizations like truck companies or quartermaster units, combat arms units need extensive training prior to employment. Single functional combat arms units like ADA or GS artillery are next up on the scale. Reserve Component organizations designed to conduct combined arms combat maneuver warfare ned lots & lots of training to get to a level of equivalence with active forces.

Second, the guys in the guard & reserves are in there for a reason. If they wanted to be full time, they'd be in the Regular Army. They don't mind being called up for the occasional long term deployment or for a national emergency, but back to back to back routine deployments is not what they bargained for

[caisson71]

We need to reduce the number of troops in Western Europe and let the EUROS take care of Bosnia and other hot spots in their own backyard, reduce our numbers in SHAPE, South Korea and Japan. Japan and South Korea have enough forces to take care of themselves.

[taxcontrol]

A couple of thoughts:

Divisions are no longer the operational focuse - it's now Brigades.

The active army need at least 6 more combat brigades, reserves need 10 more combat brigades.

Marines need 3 active / 6 reserve

At least to keep up with the current mission.

[IGOTMINE]

Yes. The Marine Corps does like to document our inevitable victories.

By the way, the Corps just retired the last truck the Army abandoned when they fled from the Chosin Reservoir.

[buwaya]

The current mission will wind down, unless there is a large scale war imposed on Iraq from one of its neighbors. There are also three National Guard brigades on the way to Iraq to replace regulars by next Jan/Feb.

This is all a temporary condition.

That said, the Army could withraw a brigade at least from the 2nd Div in Korea.

[steve50]

Doesn't anyone ever read the Constitution anymore? Doesn't anyone understand the meaning of "entangling alliances"?

No profit in minding your own business. You can't expect the countries that have resources to continue to prop up the Fed without a boot on their throats.

[BushMeister]

I think that those troops in Korea will stay right where they are, at the very least.

[RebelBanker]

I agree with your second point, but will contest your first. My old National Guard infantry brigade (3rd of the 29th) trained at JRTC on a regular basis and consistently ranked in the middle or (usually) top third of the units that went there. This included mostly active army units.

The "need for extensive additional training prior to deployment" has been a constant argument by active army advocates against the Guard. Usually, this is followed by a request to cut combat arms units in the Guard and increase them in the active Army.

[mark502inf]

My old National Guard infantry brigade (3rd of the 29th)

The Blue & Gray; proud unit--landed at Normandy on D-Day and fought all the way across Europe. At the risk of raising a ruckus, the 29th is arguably the best division in the National Guard.

[Maurkov]

Does FR have a poll function (besides overwhelming other people's, I mean)? Im curious how folks here feel re:Be Larger vs. Do Less.

[mark502inf]

I bet they got lots of pictures.