The Bush administration’s plan to add 92,000 troops to the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps is coming under increasing scrutiny from defense analysts and congressional staffers. When President George W. Bush proposed the increase — 65,000 men and women for the Army and 27,000 for the Marine Corps — in his State of the Union message last January, he garnered support from both sides of the aisle in Congress. While most Republicans offered support for the buildup out of party loyalty or belief in the president’s goals in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Democrats applauded for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism, especially the dozen who had presidential aspirations.
The proposed increases would bring the Army to almost 550,000 troops and the Marine Corps to 202,000. Senior officers of both services have strongly supported the increases. Officials say that the additions would permit a slowdown of the hectic pace of troop rotations in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates unveiled the planned increase, he assured troops in the war zones — some of whom have served two or more combat tours since the wars began — that “help is on the way.”
The Army would like to keep active-duty soldiers at their home base for at least two years for every one year they deploy, easing the home-front problems with families and loved ones. Today many troops are forced to undertake another tour of duty after only a year at home. This situation has also prevented many Army and Marine Corps units from maintaining their training schedules for different missions. An increase in active-duty strength could also ease the burden on reserve units, the 346,000 members of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the 196,000 Army reservists (USAR).
But increasingly critics of the buildup point out that in the next few years, possibly before the additional troops are added by 2010–2012, the United States will have withdrawn combat troops and possible all military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even today, they note, the U.S. commitment of ground troops in the two wars is just over ten percent of the total active Army-ARNG-USAR and Marine Corps strength.
Frank Hoffman, a retired Marine officer and leading defense analyst, has observed that the global war on terrorism and the Iraq conflict are being used as “lame rationales” for enlarging the military. Hoffman, a senior researcher at the Marine Corps Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities in Quantico, Virginia, continued, “Unless you think we will have more than six brigades in Iraq in 2012, I don’t see how this is relevant.” Other analysts and some congressional staffers have privately echoed Hoffman’s views, as have a few military officers in off-the-record conversations.
The troop buildup has an estimated initial cost of nearly $100 billion with a subsequent cost of $15 billion per year to maintain the additional forces. These costs are being incurred at a time that several new aircraft and ship programs are far above predicted costs, virtually all U.S. Army and Marine Corps ground vehicles except for M1 tanks are in need of replacement, military health costs are skyrocketing, and the increased costs of fuel are playing havoc with operating budgets.
While some troop increases transcend the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially increases in special operations forces and, to some extent, in Marine units. After withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq — as after the Vietnam War — U.S. national leaders will be very reluctant to commit ground forces to sustained combat situations. Rather, special operations and forward-deployed Marine units afloat will be the more likely to be used in future crises and conflicts. Along with forward-deployed Navy ships, they will be the “forces of preference” for the foreseeable future.
The current crises in Africa that have led to the recent establishment of the U.S. Africa Command, the confrontations with the leaders of Venezuela and Iran, competition with China and India for resources in several parts of the world, and other problem areas will demand that the United States maintain flexible and rapidly deployable presence and combat forces. It is unlikely that those will be large Army or Marine Corps ground combat formations.
WHOOPS !
When the Secretary of Defense refuses to listen to battle hardened senior leadership @ the Pentagon, the result is chillingly familiar. Shinseki warned the Bush Administration about the numbers needed to PACIFY Iraq, not just conquer it. He was forced to resign. So much for respecting expertise.
The think tankers wanted a force that could fight two wars in different places simultaneously back in the 1980’s. They now have that in spades and look what its cost the military.
Time for a complete overhaul ala George Marshall class of 1940 where all of the “unfit for command” generals, senior colonels etc were retired or asked to resign. Start with that
and begin the painstaking process of rewarding company & battalion commanders with more than TWO tours of Iraq & AFGN to the Army War College for fast track promotions and get rid of all the “non-deployable” dead weight.
I agree with the article but would like to point out that if the premise is correct about future force needs then we’re simply back to the world view prior to 9/11. If that’s the case then the Army’s Stryker Brigade concept was suppose to make the regular Army a viable player in contingency operations world wide. As versatile as the Marine Expeditionary Units are, as capable as Special Ops might be, they would still need the logistical support and armored forces that the regular Army brings to the table. I just would hate to see the Air Force example spread DOD wide…cutting people in order to purchase weapon systems.
No matter what the numbers, don’t forget any force deployed post-2012 will have 10000 unused but slightly rusty MRAPs to help out
Great. We have known terroist cells here in America and we want to keep sending our men an women over to Iraq. Who in the heck is going to protect us here when “Our troops are making grounds against the Insurgents” in Iraq? Bring our troops home, slowly, and let them use those exceptional skills to find insurgents in America before we have ANOTHER 9/11 incident.
While we need spec ops as well as light anti piracy naval assets, a build up of conventional forces wouldn’t hurt. Future heavy commitments of land forces may be just over the horizon. Further it’s not right for so few troops to bear the burden of a 300 mil person nation that only spends 4% of GDP on defense, compared with 15% in the 1950’s.. Get off the checkbook and let’s act like a superpower again…
I don’t think it’s fair that they count the national guard as part of the overall fighting strength. Not only have they been over deployed in the last 20 years, but they are people who are not as committed to soldiering as the regular forces are. These people mostly sign up to help with natural disasters at home. People who are trained to kill but have no intention to do so. I know maybe my portrayal of the Guard maybe be wrong.. but I do know that they aren’t suppose to be deployed overseas more than once every 20 years. I think it’s longer cause I remember reading that cause the guard was used in Vietnam, they shouldn’t be used in Iraq.
Foreign Boy: While you have the right general idea, your history is wrong. The main reason that the National Guard is now available to the extent that it is for foreign deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the National Guard was a way of avoiding service in Vietnam, at a time when the United States was drafting significant numbers of people.
I am in full agreement with the policy that says that the National Guard, made up of trained people who have volunteered for military service should be deployed before the nation resorts for a draft. But, there was an overreaction.
There is room for middle ground between current policy which treats National Guard soldiers as fungible alternatives to active duty soldiers and sends them on multiple tours of duty in a five year old war with no end in sight, and the Vietnam era policy that deployed conscripts before deploying members of the Guard.
It wouldn’t be unreasonable, for example, to limit National Guard deployments to one foreign tour of duty in the absence of a draft. The National Guard should be the last line of defense that allows us time to train citizen soldier conscripts, not a crutch for generals who have trouble planning troop requires that are obvious far in advance.
“the Democrats applauded for fear of being labeled soft on terrorism“
Right.
It couldn’t be because they see our Army stretched to the breaking point by repeated deployments.
Did you lift that line from Fox “news”?
I agree 110% John Schiller.….Even with all the hi-cost contracted civilian support, Air Force and Navy, cooks, clerk typist, etc have been sent to fill in as truck drivers, machine gun operators etc.That smaller and meaner group have served 2,3,4 and more tours in Iraq and AFghanistan . Lets do this, Have nothing but ground troops on active duty, and contract all the rest support jobs. But have half a million grunts, army and marine so there will be enough to rotate in and out in any conflict one time…Don’t send our sons and daughters time and time again till they eventuall all get killed.….…
What most people fail to grasp is the ratio of combat elements, aka “trigger pullers” to logistical and support elements, aka “paper pushers”. Whether the “paper pusher” is a tractor-trailer driver, water point operator, medic or administrator each one has a specific job to do that ultimately supports the “trigger puller”. It previously was referred to as the “tooth to tail ratio” which has risen continuously from 1–10 in WWII to 1–15 in Vietnam to 1–19 in the present. Technology has expanded the abilities of the military to support it’s actual combat arms –Infantry, Armor, Artillery, fighter-bombers, subs, destroyers and such. The rest only exist to insure the bullets and bombs delivered to the “trigger pullers” get, in turn, delivered to the enemy. Expanded missions are given to “trigger pullers”. Now they must be politicians, lawyers, traffic cops, governmental interceeders and perform so many complex duties that have never been trained nor even thought of in prior wars. It would be nice if all those thousands of soldiers and marines were “trigger pullers” but it will never turn out that way. If even 25% of them are actual combat troops that would be a surprise to me.
This is so stupid. I may be repeating some of the other posts, but this is exactly the same kind of thinking that we heard after 1990 “Hey the Soviet Union is no longer around, so let’s disarm and get a peace dividend!” What happened is obvious: we cut our Army and Marines down so much that only ten years later, we badly needed the number of troops that we had in the First Gulf war, but there were only half as many around as before. Don’t we ever learn? We are engaged in a world-wide fight against Al-queda; while Iraq is looking a lot better, we still have a big problem in and around Pakistan with Bin Laden, and only God knows what else is stirring ten years from now. We need double or triple the number of troop increase proposed by Bush and the sooner the better.
Dear Sir: President Bush is a hypocrite. He will give his life for the free market system that screws us; but he refuses to practice what he preaches. If America will pay them, our future professional soldiers will come. America needs to stop giving college scholarships to bribe our young people to serve our country. We need to make being in the military a life time career for both the enlisted men and the officers in our military. We must stop retiring people in the military if they can still work, who want to stay! The use of Blackwater in Iraq is a disgrace to this nation, who should pay our full time soldiers the same kind of money to sever all their life in the military; knowing that if they achieve, they constantly through out their life, they will get a raise. America needs life time well paid career military personnel who are professional soldiers who want to devote their entire lives to the national defense of this country. A well paid military will cause our young men to flood to the military. We must stop the historical disgrace of this nation, who has a long history of cheating our soldiers on their pay and under funding them; while our politicians, they take all they can get from the American taxpayers. Stop paying our soldiers minimum wage! Pay them a professional wage!