It's a Start
Here's a report that the Army has been authorized to increase its manpower by 30,000 under an emergency authority expected to last four years. The Army and Defense Department have rejected calls for permanent increases, saying that it is too early for permanent increases that would interfere with efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.
Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been making ever more insistant demands that the Army increase its size. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said a permanent increase would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.
While I recognize the need to make those changes, there is little question that we need to have more people in uniform. A couple more divisions' worth in the army, plus the necessary support troops is a minimum. We need to have troops for our current commitments, such as in Korea, for any emergency, such as in Iraq; more troops to relieve troops committed to an emergency; and for good measure even more troops to deal with another emergency. We only have enough for the first two, and the pressure on our soldiers in terms of lengthy deployments and the like will mean that a lot of them will not be reenlisting. This will create even greater problems in the future is this problem is not addressed now.
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I'm still not convinced that
I'm still not convinced that more is better. Flooding more bodies into the training and support system may do more harm than good, with associated impact on readiness and effectiveness.
I would be more enthusiastic about such a plan if it specified which specialties would be increased. I think the Army would be alot better off, not just in Iraq but in general, with more infantrymen, MPs, and counterintelligence people but with fewer accountants, for example.
I agree, GL. We don't need a
I agree, GL. We don't need a flood of new accountants. But we certainly do need more infantry, and possibly MPs trained in peacekeeping/occupation duty to allow the frontline troops to be used for what they do best. This should be done as soon as possible - the longer we wait, the more attrition we'll have from the disgruntled leaving the army.
I've always been a bit
I've always been a bit curious about how the military spends its money...for example, given the total budget, how much does the military spend per soldier? How much of that is for equipment?
Since we are fighting an in-person enemy, we need to focus our resources on having the best possible equipment for an individual trooper, and not on heavy, destructive weaponry. Are we doing this?
BHead is on the money. The
BHead is on the money. The Army needs more trigger-pullers and fewer hand-holders. Leave that to the blue-helmets. Didja notice that the Marine Corps doesn't lose men every day? Yes, it's because they are in more settled areas, and supporting the Polish unit there. But it's also because Marines are built to kick ass, not kiss it. When the fight was over, the USMC was put on "pause"; when the Pentagon needs to fight again, it will press "play".
Ross- we know that somewhere the military must have to disclose how much it spends, at least in general publicly-available terms, how much it spends on new stuff, maintaining existing stuff, etc. Do you think that they account for every widget beyond classified Congressional budget reports? It might be fun to find out.
I think American servicepeople get the best possible equipment that their respective service branch can provide. How's that for answering without answering?
I know for a while in the 80
I know for a while in the 80's and 90's, readiness was impacted because the military wanted all the glamour weapons programs (Crusader SP artillery, Sgt York AA, Osprey VTOL, etc), at the expense of maintenance and training. I believe that the trend has eased if not reversed, in part because the B-1 bomber program cost so much per unit. At the original numbers projected to purchase, it wasn't too bad, but as Congress and the USAF scaled back orders, the price for each plane became horrifying. That was a big wake-up call for a lot of people.
The sexy technology programs are smaller in scope nowadays, and they've gone back to incremental improvements in a lot of areas instead of trying for generational leaps in technology. That all leaves more money for training and equipment maintenance.