Growing the Army

[Administrator]

Administration proposals for end-strength increases for the Army and Marine Corps were welcome, if overdue, news for a force that is at its smallest size since the mid-1990s and that is fighting a two-front war.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/03/2535551

[RogerSimpson]

I agree entirely with those who say the ridiculously fractional increase suggested by the Bush Administration is far too inadequate. But working “on the cheap” and with the tiniest of numbers is par for the course in Republican Administrations, and the weakness of Democrat Administrations who suc***b to Republican Party pressures to reduce military and government size rendering both woefully inadequate to serve the American people and perform successfully in a national or military emergency.

It is The American War Library’s judgment that the active force of the United States Army should never at any time during peace be allowed to war to fall below 1 million warm bodies, with a Reserve numbering no less than 350,000 and a National Guard force represented by a numerical formula based on each state’s population and/or its climatic uniqueness that may require a seasonal military response.

However, even if the above numbers were approved by Congress and the American people, there will never be sufficient volunteers prior to the next election n 2008 who will enlist under the current Administration for the following reasons:

1. The Bush Administration has refused to promote minority officers. (currently, African- and Japanese American’s have the lowest enlistment numbers since WW2. ‘Firing’ General Shinseki and chasing off Colin Powell greatly affected youth of their races),

2. Our chain of command’s two highest civilians (both president Bush and VP Cheney having dodged the draft during the Vietnam War are, quite frankly, accurately viewed by enlistment-age youth as cowards.

3. Candidate Bush’s approval during the 2004 presidential campaign to use one of his campaign financiers to fund the “Swift Boat” group to devaluate (slander) the war-time awards lawfully authorized to Sen. John Kerry (the Navy I.G. issued a report in 2005 stating that all of Lt. Kerry’s awards were lawfully deserved) was not lost on our nation’s youth. Every 18 year old (and his/her parent) received the Republican Party message in 2004 that if he or she earned a valorous medal any war coward they were in political, professional or job application competition with -- who didn’t receive the same military honor --could successfully convince an employer or the American public that their military honors were worthless. The war in Iraq was decidedly lost when those voting for Bush overwhelmed Kerry voters by saying that military service and honorable medals didn’t mean spit. Unfortunately for Sen. Kerry because the Draft has been abolished, the millions of military-eligible populace continued their consistent pattern of avoiding to vote. But had the Draft been in effect in 2004 Sen. Kerry would have defeated George W. Bush in one of the greatest landslides in American history.

When a nation places its war evaders about its war heroes that nation will lose wars.

This is not to say that Silver Star recipient John Kerry -- or any war hero (the Silver Star is a valorous, heroic award) -- is inherently endowed with an overpowering, Jesuit wisdom. But any Silver Star recipient, however stupid in his election campaign, is far more military-wise than his/her opponent who successfully endeavored to avoid combat service during wartime. During wartime the dumbest heroes are always preferred over the smartest cowards. That’s why there is no I.Q. examination factor when reviewing a candidate for the Medal of Honor.

Roger Simpson (http://www.13105320634.com)
PIO, The American War Library
http://www.amervets.com

[John Goodrick]

Reference Growing the Army. First we need to engage in some basic thinking. Lets start at zero.

There can be little question that we need a larger Army. But we also need to re-think our entire defense organization. If we were to begin a new organization today would could we justify an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and hide the Coast Guard under Homeland Security? (We write our history, history does not write us. And an organization which has served in the past may not serve well in the future.) We could probably get by with just two branches of service, an Army and a Navy. The purpose of the military needs to be made very clear….it is to protect our country and that would include its borders, both costal and land.
But, is it possible to have a successful democracy if its defense is voluntary? We need to return to universal male conscription. The idea that we are so weak that we must send our daughters and sisters who are also the mothers of young children out to do battle for us is repugnant. Any country which can not muster adequate men to defend itself calls into question its moral right to engage in warfare. Military service should be a normal phase of life in a democracy. The benefits of a free democracy are to be spread evenly among the citizens, and so should the costs. The idea that we need to send our reserve components to such a small war as Iraq because we do not have an active military large enough to fight it makes me dread the though that we might ever have to fight a major war.

Yes we need to expand our reserve components. They are being mis-used. But all members of the reserve components must have prior active military service. Furthermore, as members go through life, they should be encouraged to move from active to reserve to active as their goals change. The reserve leadership needs more active experience. As it stands, a 1Lt can make General simply by attending a drill a weekend a month and doing summer camp. This is not realistic. The same holds for NCOs.
“The Military does not fight wars. Societies fight wars.” So we should not embark on any war until after conscription is in place, taxes raised to pay for it, and enlistments for the duration. Leave the girls at home, and do not expect airconditioning, hot showers and pizza delivery on a battlefield.
But only if we really want to win

[USMAjoe]

While I agree that the military does not have the adequate boots on ground ratio to achieve its current missions or its expected future military obligations I believe it would be absurd to assume that simply expanding the Army would be sufficient to solving its current ills.
The military provides security. I protects the the borders of our country and serves as an instrument of kinetic foreign policy. It has vast resources and capacities that are beneficial to law enforcement, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief. Time and again our military has proven its ability to accomplish these missions quickly and decisivey. However, time and again the military in recent history has proven to be insufficiently resourced and organized for rebuilding the national and political systems destroyed during conflicts or natural disasters.
The military forces that rebuilt Japan, Germany, and South Korea were enormous and could draw from within their large conscript forces a vast array of technical, political, and social experts to solve the intricate difficulties associated with nation-building without weakening thier tactical and operational forces. The modern volunteer army doesn't enjoy such depth and breadth. Efforts to conduct nation-building and capacity building exercises in parallel to security operations drains the available pool of talent very quickly. Leaders are forced to choose a balance between tactical and strategic priorities, often mitigating short term risk at the expense of long term priorities. The military attempted to solve this problem by creating a large National Guard biased towards combat support and service support organizations and designed to agument the longer term operations of the active force. These organizations, however, remain numerically difficient in the areas of intelligence, civil affairs, psychological operations, and contracting. Vastly increasing the size and blend of these resources would help for current and future operations, but would continue to be hampered by the political and social constraints that such large forces would have upon on our nation and its economy.
A large standing military is both an enormous financial burden, but also a great political temptation. Endowed with great force, and burdened by its heavy costs political leaders have historically adopted a "use it or lose it" policy. Choosing military activism over diplomacy or cost cutting measures that create a "hollow army" to justify its continued existence. The absence of total war prevents the sustained mobilization of public support necessary to create and maintain the large standing army necessary to be successful in fighting wars and rebuilding nations.
Answers to the large standing army dilemma range from reinstituting the draft to increasing the use of civilian contractors on the battlefield. Neither of these solutions have proven to be a panacea to the problem, and have also created innumerable questions about the limited quantitative and qualitative advantages that they bring to our current professional military forces.
It is my belief that there two options available that could solve our current dilemma of nation building capacity and the necessity to maitain a medium sized professional army.
One. Similar to the Joint Operational Doctrine adopted following Grenada all cabinet level organizations within the executive branch need to be expeditionary and integrated into force structures to maximize their experience and intellectual knowledge for nation building and reconstruction efforts both internally and internationally. Natural disasters, humanitarian missions, and nation building would all be better run be people who conduct those operations on a daily basis within our national bureacracy, not by the military. This would free the military to focus on rebuilding infrastracture, conducting security operations, and training indigenous forces. These integration, however, would need to be conducted at all levels of the force structure. From the CINC to the Battalion the resources of the Cabinets need to be leveraged and provided for nation building with representatives for the S-2 (CIA, FBI, NSA), S-4 (State, USAID) , S-5 (State, DEA ) and S-6 (NSA, CIA, FBI) down to the lowest level....CZARS don't cut it.
Two. If we can't succeed with the first then we need to create a civilian pool of expertise available for deployment to fulfill those needs. Scholarships for advanced degrees and bureacratic training combined with an initial basic training could serve as a positive incentive to attract smart individuals seeking to aid their country without requiring combat service. This white collar guard could be available for nation building deployments commenserate on a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 contract basis for collegiate time in schooling and would be both socially acceptable and relatively cheap to create, sustain, and mobilize.
Increasing the size of the Military isn't the solution. Reorganizing and leveraging the vast resources of our nation is.

[Algha]

the more u grow the army,the more people wil die.... but in order to lead the countries all over the world,the countries need to advance the teck of army.... let see the future!