thedrifter
12-21-06, 08:20 PM
Counting the boots on the ground
ANALYSIS: The U.S. military is stretched too thin abroad. PAUL KORING says the question is how big it should get, and how soon
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military, already the most powerful on the planet, may add as many as 70,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines over the next few years.
No increase has yet been approved by Congress or funded, but 70,000 more men and women in uniform would be roughly equivalent to the entire Canadian Armed Forces -- although it's a relatively small increase in the overall size of the U.S. military, which currently has about 1.3 million men and women on active duty. (The 70,000 figure is one that has been debated, although no one in the administration has confirmed it.)
Months of deadlock over whether the size of the U.S. active armed forces should be increased apparently ended this week when President George W. Bush said he wanted a bigger army. "We need to increase the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines," Mr. Bush said. But just how much bigger and how fast the growth remain unclear.
What is certain is that it will take years to train and equip additional troops and cost about $1-billion annually for every 10,000 additional serving soldiers. The U.S. Marines have said they want an extra 5,000.
The army has already grown by nearly 30,000 soldiers under a "temporary" increase enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It expects to have 514,000 active-duty soldiers in 2007. Some Pentagon planners want an army of 540,000. Currently, the U.S. Marines have about 180,000 men.
The so-called "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and the 1991 Persian Gulf war saw the U.S. military cut by more than 200,000.
More than three years of war in Iraq, and more than five years since the U.S-led invasion toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, have put enormous strain on the military, especially ground troops. Heavy and repeated use of National Guard and Army Reserve troops -- part-time soldiers -- will also have to end soon because of a two-year limit on the length of time those civilian soldiers can be sent overseas.
Senior commanders make no secret of the fact that the army and marines are currently stretched thin and more troops are needed.
"The truth of the matter is, every day since we started Operation Iraqi Freedom, it's taken about 600,000 soldiers -- active, guard and reserve -- to meet the military requirements, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but certainly in the other 80 countries around the world where we have commitments," U. S. General Richard Cody, the army vice-chief of staff, said yesterday.
For years, efforts in Congress and from the military to increase the active-duty strength of the army and marines were blocked by former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld agreed to temporary increases but his doctrine of a lighter, more mobile military and greater reliance on high-technology weaponry was at odds with more boots on the ground. But after Mr. Rumsfeld's forced resignation, Mr. Bush has opted to echo the efforts of those pushing for a larger military.
"The reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists," he said yesterday.
There is considerable support in Congress for increasing the size of the military, both among Democrats and Republicans.
Even some war critics endorse increasing the size of the active-duty military, if only to ease pressure on the National Guard and reserves.
Ellie
ANALYSIS: The U.S. military is stretched too thin abroad. PAUL KORING says the question is how big it should get, and how soon
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military, already the most powerful on the planet, may add as many as 70,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines over the next few years.
No increase has yet been approved by Congress or funded, but 70,000 more men and women in uniform would be roughly equivalent to the entire Canadian Armed Forces -- although it's a relatively small increase in the overall size of the U.S. military, which currently has about 1.3 million men and women on active duty. (The 70,000 figure is one that has been debated, although no one in the administration has confirmed it.)
Months of deadlock over whether the size of the U.S. active armed forces should be increased apparently ended this week when President George W. Bush said he wanted a bigger army. "We need to increase the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines," Mr. Bush said. But just how much bigger and how fast the growth remain unclear.
What is certain is that it will take years to train and equip additional troops and cost about $1-billion annually for every 10,000 additional serving soldiers. The U.S. Marines have said they want an extra 5,000.
The army has already grown by nearly 30,000 soldiers under a "temporary" increase enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It expects to have 514,000 active-duty soldiers in 2007. Some Pentagon planners want an army of 540,000. Currently, the U.S. Marines have about 180,000 men.
The so-called "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War and the 1991 Persian Gulf war saw the U.S. military cut by more than 200,000.
More than three years of war in Iraq, and more than five years since the U.S-led invasion toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, have put enormous strain on the military, especially ground troops. Heavy and repeated use of National Guard and Army Reserve troops -- part-time soldiers -- will also have to end soon because of a two-year limit on the length of time those civilian soldiers can be sent overseas.
Senior commanders make no secret of the fact that the army and marines are currently stretched thin and more troops are needed.
"The truth of the matter is, every day since we started Operation Iraqi Freedom, it's taken about 600,000 soldiers -- active, guard and reserve -- to meet the military requirements, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but certainly in the other 80 countries around the world where we have commitments," U. S. General Richard Cody, the army vice-chief of staff, said yesterday.
For years, efforts in Congress and from the military to increase the active-duty strength of the army and marines were blocked by former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld agreed to temporary increases but his doctrine of a lighter, more mobile military and greater reliance on high-technology weaponry was at odds with more boots on the ground. But after Mr. Rumsfeld's forced resignation, Mr. Bush has opted to echo the efforts of those pushing for a larger military.
"The reason why I'm inclined to believe this is a good idea is because I understand that we're going to be in a long struggle against radicals and extremists," he said yesterday.
There is considerable support in Congress for increasing the size of the military, both among Democrats and Republicans.
Even some war critics endorse increasing the size of the active-duty military, if only to ease pressure on the National Guard and reserves.
Ellie