Us And What Army?

[Plaid Adder]

OK, I am asking this in all seriousness because it puzzles me: why don't we have a bigger army?

I mean for Christ's sake with the money we spend on defense, how come we don't have more people in the army? Are they more expensive than machines, or do they just not have as high a profit margin, or what?

Because I thought about this a while back: I have been on marches that had 180,000 people in them. If you put 180,000 people on one street in Washington, it really looks like a lot. But if you spread them out over an entire country, it isn't really very much. How come this is all we can do? I mean, really?

Continually boggled,

The Plaid Adder

[JHB]

1. You expect them to spend money on PEOPLE?

How would they afford the $600 toilet seats?

[Starpass]

2. Article read on C-Span WJ this a.m.

Cong. Budget Office reports that we just plain don't have enough troops. And that things are going to be really bad by March (forgot why). Anyway, nice going, you fucking asshole Bush-----it's probably better to count heads before you storm the fucking castle, don't you think????? Bush Leadership In Action.....

[graham67]

3. From what I understand....

(I'm no military expert)

The US military had been geared towards European wars, specifically for the Russian threat. When the Cold War was over the structure became obsolete. The idea was to make it a smaller, lighter, more mobile army in order to engage in conflicts of the present time. Donald Rumsfeld is a huge proponent of the light, fast, hard-hitting new army. The present day Army was brilliant, because you can see how fast they wiped out Iraq. But they aren't equipped for large-scale peacekeeping missions (Armies destroy things, they don't build!) and that's the problem we're seeing now. There are experts who argue that the troops size could be doubled in Iraq and the results would be the same.

This is the information I've picked up along the way...

[wickerwoman]

4. A bigger army in terms of personel means a greater possibility

of kids coming home in bodybags and embarrassing Bush.
Cheney's vision of an ideal army is one where we can put one kid on a ship a thousand miles from the conflict and have him blow the shit out of the enemy. This is cheaper than hiring a bunch of people and reduces the chance of any of our soldiers being killed. The downside is that it doesn't really solve anything when the enemy does anything more sophisticated than stand in groups in the open desert.
So Cheney and Rumsfeld streamlined the army with a view to profits and political convienence rather than efficiency.

[LoneStarLiberal]

5. Shift In Technology

Our defense budget mostly goes toward costs of technology associated with the military; Stealth bombers, Tomahawk cruise missiles, aircraft carriers, and M1 Abrams main battle tanks are very, very expensive. In particular we are now seeing a huge ramp up in expenditures for the military due to the use of some of these high-tech munitions in volume in the invasion of Iraq.

For instance, Tomahawk cruise missiles, Block 3 (the latest variety), cost around $750,000 per missile. The older versions (Blocks 1 and 2) cost around $1 million per missile.

Unfortunately for the war-by-joystick crowd Tomahawks do a really piss poor job of walking the point in Tikrit.

[2cents]

6. In true corporate form...

...they're opting to outsource. Aren't we paying Poland 100k per troop? I dont know how much we're paying the other countries.

[Brian Sweat]

12. Is this true? Do you have a source?

[htuttle]

7. Defense contractors don't make much on troops

Of course, they didn't used to make anything at all on troops, but with KBR hired to do most of what the quartermasters and See Bees combined used to handle, they make at least something now. Not NEARLY as much profit as what they make on crap like the 'Crusader' system, though.

Look at documents related to the phrase 'Revolution in Military Affairs' to see the philosophical roots (or cover story) of this boondoggle.

Do we REALLY have the most powerful military in the world, or just the most expensive?

[pansypoo53219]

8. because its a big game of men and their toys

and getting as much $$$ to the MIComplex and contibutors.
they don't give a shit for the men IN the military.

[PATRICK]

9. failed and/or inconsistent strategies

A witches' brew of ill fitting facts. The army could fight and win certain good-sized wars or even two at a time. Or tackle a bunch of brush fire or widespread committments. The actual number of fighters(no draft) is fairly low but more and more an adjunct of overwhelmeing weapon systems technology, which is tempting to rely on for an overaweing and superior edge no troop numbers can give.

In the midst of that one thing stands out. For most objectives, especially securing territory, the army is the most vital decisive factor both in numbers and superiority.

Now come the Bushistas. Blitz Iraq. The country then proceeds to swallow more army committment than the defeated Axis in WWII. One reason is because our toys worked so well we really did not crush and devastate over a wearing period. No one formally surrendered. The fatal flaw was the chickenhawk visionaries were wrong about Iraqis wanting to be an American territory. Wrong too about the UN and others doing our bidding as we jumped on with small forces to other pushover victories. Wronmg too in suddenly finding a complete reversal of fortunes in that our army is tied down while the worldwide terrorist movement regroups, this time inside the very country we wrongly invaded.

Apparently, the plan(the open one that is, if they wanted to eventiually drag us into the draft they don't dare say) is to knock off a country garrison it with mercenary types of "allies" bully our real enemies, knock off raw material weaklings and keep gpoing, occasionally stirring up trouble among our rivals(anybody we can't dominate or trade with like a third world nation).

So nothing is going according to the sane plans of pre-Rumsfeld Pentagon, nor according to the new plans of the Neo-Nappies. Now with the bulk of our fighting troups tied down in Iraq for no good purpose at all really except hanging on to Halliburton's interest, the strategic might of the US has been expended like the budget surplus- only to the enrichment of Bush donors. They value business, toys and bullying over employment of public servants anyway and treat the troops with actually very revealing contempt- as any smug chickenhawk must whtehr they intended to or not.

[Grins]

10. The answer is...

U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A....etc. The strength of the Army (and all of DoD) is fixed by Congress - "It's the Law!". The total authorized strength of the Army has remained at about 480,000 since Fiscal Year 1999. The force was downsized in 1989 (...let's see, who was President that year?...Oh, it was...uh, never mind.).

To add additional troops, literally, takes an act of Congress. This is not a new law, its been around for quite a while. Ever wonder why the military outsourced cooks, gate guards, construction, etc - it was to make more room for guys that pull triggers. Outsourced people are not counted as part of the authorized strength.

It ain't easy increasing the authorized strength. The bean counters on the Hill take a crack at the cost of each additional person, unit, etc. This is the correct thing to do. Corporations do it everyday, but they add in an ROI calculation that the feds do not. The fed bean counters factor in the costs of training, equipping, paying, and MEDICAL!!, and RETIREMENT!!!, and BENEFITS!!! to come up the true cost of the authorized strength. When you bring someone into the military you are making certain promises to him that will be costed into the next several decades. It ain't pretty.

The good news, for one side of the aisle at least, is that we can have a bigger military quite easily. The sky's the limit because that cost is paid for by deficit spending; and we all know that expense is absolutely meaningless. It "doesn't matter". Respected economists said so. Lemme see, what did they call it?..oh, yeah, "Nonsense" and "Rubinomics" (Glenn Hubbard Chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, Wall St. Journal, 12/17/02).

That's not the whole story, but it's a good answer.

[Cocoa]

11. you nailed it with "profit margins"

fewer troops mean more money for missile defense and other such transfers of wealth.