INDCJournal: More Troops, Continued

« "What Happens To Your Body If You Drink A Coke Right Now?" | Main | "The Most Dangerous Place in Iraq" »

December 13, 2006

More Troops, Continued

Posted by Bill

After varying assessments for more troops from NCO's, junior officers, (retired) senior officers, military analysts, Senators and Congressmen, and wondering why the Administration and Congress haven't taken aggressive steps to expand the military ...

Why didn't the Administration (through Congress) use the past 3-5 years to restructure the composition of the service branches to meet the needs of an occupation, insurgency and massive reconstruction project? The answer for planning in 2001 to late-2003 is simple: they didn't anticipate a long insurgency and occupation. For late-2003 and beyond, I have no idea.
...
And the fundamental question remains: given that current military spending as a percentage of GDP is below levels of spending during the first Gulf War, the Reagan defense build-up, Vietnam and Korea, ("The Sustainable Economics of War") why is this Administration not pushing Congress for a level of investment necessary to win out the critical strategic gambles in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as make ready for the next conflict?

... an official request is on the horizon:

The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.

The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.

"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines."

Not to mention explains the practical limits on significant surges of personnel for contingencies that arise in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

Do note that the numbers are relatively small, however: the Army may be requesting a 6% increase from its officially budgeted "end-strength," but that's really less than a one percent increase when compared to the number of personnel currently on active duty. The report is less than specific on the Marines, citing a requested increase of "a few thousand."

These requests are also intended to shift the accounting away from the emergency defense bills and into the regular budget, lending incremental gains an imprimatur's permanence.

Posted by Bill at December 13, 2006 06:11 AM | TrackBack (2)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2882

Comments

Bill, what do you think about a Constitional Amendment which prohibits the President from moving the National Guard overseas without a declaration of war? After the Iraq War is over, of course.

Posted by: Foster at December 13, 2006 12:18 PM

I think it's an awful idea, from a practical perspective.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at December 13, 2006 01:12 PM

Why, exactly?

Maybe I don't deserve an answer, it's just been an idea I've been kicking around in my head. It would cause the President to increase the size of the standing army, and prevent the U.S. from entering situations like Vietnam and Iraq without a clear, bipartisan mandate.

On a related note, were you ever bothered with the lack of a DoW for the Iraq war?

Posted by: Foster at December 13, 2006 10:56 PM

It would cause the President to increase the size of the standing army, and prevent the U.S. from entering situations like Vietnam and Iraq without a clear, bipartisan mandate.

If the President could increase the size of the standing army to cover the loss of access to the National Guard, I'd agree. As it is, I severely doubt (an understatement) that they could recruit that many full-time personnel.

Look at the text of that report: the Army and Marines are asking for increased access to the Natl Guard as it is, who currently have a one year deployed, five years rest schedule.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at December 14, 2006 12:21 AM

Perhaps I misspoke. What I suggested was an amendment that prohibited overseas deployment of NG soldiers without a declaration of war. I didn't suggest that the President should never have access to the National Guard.

Posted by: Foster at December 14, 2006 12:41 PM

No, I misheard. Ok, but I'm not sure I understand the practical difference, specifically with regards to Iraq.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at December 14, 2006 01:02 PM

There's no practical application to the current Iraq war at all. I just thought that the interventions in Iraq and Vietnam wouldn't have happened if the President had to get a Declaration of War before utilizing the full strength of the Army.

Posted by: Foster at December 14, 2006 02:11 PM