The Army, Faced With Its Limits

[Thom Little]

One million men and women serve in the United States Army, so why is it proving nearly impossible to keep a mere 150,000 of them in Iraq?

The Pentagon expects to face many Iraq-type conflicts in the coming years, wars that involve battling insurgents and restoring stability. As a result, a debate is beginning to churn in defense policy circles: Should the government enlarge the military so it can more easily fight these wars? Or should the government alter its policies, so as not to fight such wars as often, at least not alone?

Senior Pentagon officials argue that neither shift is necessary, that reorganizing the Army's existing combat units into stronger, faster and more flexible brigades will have the same effect as adding more soldiers. But some analysts doubt these adjustments alone will go far enough.

Lawrence Korb, who was assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, states the issue baldly: "We cannot fight a long, sustained war without a larger ground force." He defines a "long war" as lasting two years or more. The Iraq war has gone on now for nearly three.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/weekinreview/01kaplan.html

[babylonsister]

1. I wish I could actually access a NYTimes article! They

did themselves and me a disservice, but I'll take your word for it, Thom.

[Thom Little]

2. Here's how you can access it.

http://www.bugmenot.com

[Historic NY]

3. Perhaps if they got rid of some brass.........

there are about 10 Colonels for every grunt.

http://www..com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200402/ai_n9348193

[twenty4blackbirds]

4. c.f. Frank L. Baum

'Ozma of Oz' novel I think.

[neweurope]

5. Easiest solution: Stay the hell out of other people's countries.

And voilà: hardly any soldiers needed anymore! And the world would applaud you, to boot.



----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[baldguy]

7. Save a whole lot of money too.

We could actually afford to have a Republican President.

[TheBaldyMan]

6. It would be easier if US didn't have other global deployments

S. Korea, Japan, Europe as well as the other mid-east deployments (e.g. in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia).

The global projection of power comes with its own problems. Stationing 150,000 troops in the carribean it wouldn't be such a logistic strain as in the Mid/Near East. Fighting troops have traditionally had a heavy logistic tail in Western forces. The actual number of combat/security troops are probably a small fraction of the total number deployed.

The continuing trend towards higher tech increases the burden of support arms. Paradoxically, it is these soft targets that are targetted by forces ill-disposed to the occupying forces. Who in their right mind would assault a fully mechanised, all-arms force when they can waylay an isolated convoy at the time and place of their own choosing instead.