thedrifter
12-26-06, 07:35 PM
January 01, 2007
Finding the right size
Sources: Corps may need to grow by 20,000
By Kimberly Johnson
Staff writer
The Corps will need as many as 20,000 more Marines to turn the commandant’s plan for the service’s future into reality, defense sources familiar with discussions said.
However, before the service gets bigger, Marine officials must outline the role of U.S. forces beyond Iraq, defense analysts say.
The 20,000 additional leathernecks would bring the Corps to an end strength of 200,000, the highest since 1971.
Word of possible increases came as President Bush announced his intention to expand the Army and Marine Corps.
The Corps is authorized for 175,000 Marines but, in recent years, has used emergency wartime supplemental funding to temporarily boost that number to 180,000.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway, who took command of the Corps in November, has said he wants to “right-size” the force and increase units’ “deployment-to-dwell” ratio to 1:2. That means deploying units, which typically spend seven months at home and seven months deployed, would double their time at home to 14 months between combat tours. The new ratio would allow Marines to recover and train before deploying again, Corps spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas said.
Conway has spoken of adding at least 5,000 Marines, maybe more. But it would take at least 20,000 to give Marines more time at home between combat deployments, the defense sources said.
Few question that current forces are strained. The debate largely centers on why additional troops are needed, analysts say.
More deployable troops would make a difference in Iraq, one analyst said.
“I think to make a meaningful difference in the Iraq operation, we need at least 75,000 to 100,000 more U.S. troops,” said Michael O’Hanlon, defense analyst at The Brookings Institution. “Proportionately, you’d expect that perhaps 25,000 would be Marines.”
Bringing in 20,000 additional Marines could take the Corps three to five years, said Robert Work, a retired colonel and senior defense analyst for the conservative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Sustaining funding over the long haul is also a concern for military planners, he said. Army and Marine officials are worried that supplemental war funding for personnel will dry up when troops pull out of Iraq, Work said.
“You can win major combat operations with relatively small forces. To do occupations, you need more. Debate will be centered on, ‘Are we going to do something like Iraq again?’” Work said
While troop levels have historically been much higher than today’s level, never before have defense planners attempted to add to the ranks when individual personnel costs have been so high. For each 10,000 Marines, the Corps would face a recurring cost of at least $1.2 billion for personnel expenses alone, Work said.
“To contemplate an increase like this would be extremely expensive. It has to be balanced with other needs of the Corps, such as equipment and modernization,” he said.
Any decisions about increasing the Corps’ end strength would need to be defined by a vision of it’s future role and not its current role in Iraq, said Gordon Adams, a defense analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
“No one foresees a major land war after Iraq. The long war on terror does not justify adding 20,000 Marines,” Adams said. “They want to add people because they’re stressed. They’re stressed because of Iraq. We cannot solve the stresses of Iraq through increase in permanent forces.”
An argument could be made that any personnel increases should go to the Army and not the Corps, since they are more likely to be an occupying force, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the conservative Lexington Institute.
“I think the Marine Corps has to decide whether it wants to be a first-responder force or it wants to sustain multiyear occupation,” Thompson said.
Ellie
Finding the right size
Sources: Corps may need to grow by 20,000
By Kimberly Johnson
Staff writer
The Corps will need as many as 20,000 more Marines to turn the commandant’s plan for the service’s future into reality, defense sources familiar with discussions said.
However, before the service gets bigger, Marine officials must outline the role of U.S. forces beyond Iraq, defense analysts say.
The 20,000 additional leathernecks would bring the Corps to an end strength of 200,000, the highest since 1971.
Word of possible increases came as President Bush announced his intention to expand the Army and Marine Corps.
The Corps is authorized for 175,000 Marines but, in recent years, has used emergency wartime supplemental funding to temporarily boost that number to 180,000.
Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway, who took command of the Corps in November, has said he wants to “right-size” the force and increase units’ “deployment-to-dwell” ratio to 1:2. That means deploying units, which typically spend seven months at home and seven months deployed, would double their time at home to 14 months between combat tours. The new ratio would allow Marines to recover and train before deploying again, Corps spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas said.
Conway has spoken of adding at least 5,000 Marines, maybe more. But it would take at least 20,000 to give Marines more time at home between combat deployments, the defense sources said.
Few question that current forces are strained. The debate largely centers on why additional troops are needed, analysts say.
More deployable troops would make a difference in Iraq, one analyst said.
“I think to make a meaningful difference in the Iraq operation, we need at least 75,000 to 100,000 more U.S. troops,” said Michael O’Hanlon, defense analyst at The Brookings Institution. “Proportionately, you’d expect that perhaps 25,000 would be Marines.”
Bringing in 20,000 additional Marines could take the Corps three to five years, said Robert Work, a retired colonel and senior defense analyst for the conservative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Sustaining funding over the long haul is also a concern for military planners, he said. Army and Marine officials are worried that supplemental war funding for personnel will dry up when troops pull out of Iraq, Work said.
“You can win major combat operations with relatively small forces. To do occupations, you need more. Debate will be centered on, ‘Are we going to do something like Iraq again?’” Work said
While troop levels have historically been much higher than today’s level, never before have defense planners attempted to add to the ranks when individual personnel costs have been so high. For each 10,000 Marines, the Corps would face a recurring cost of at least $1.2 billion for personnel expenses alone, Work said.
“To contemplate an increase like this would be extremely expensive. It has to be balanced with other needs of the Corps, such as equipment and modernization,” he said.
Any decisions about increasing the Corps’ end strength would need to be defined by a vision of it’s future role and not its current role in Iraq, said Gordon Adams, a defense analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
“No one foresees a major land war after Iraq. The long war on terror does not justify adding 20,000 Marines,” Adams said. “They want to add people because they’re stressed. They’re stressed because of Iraq. We cannot solve the stresses of Iraq through increase in permanent forces.”
An argument could be made that any personnel increases should go to the Army and not the Corps, since they are more likely to be an occupying force, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the conservative Lexington Institute.
“I think the Marine Corps has to decide whether it wants to be a first-responder force or it wants to sustain multiyear occupation,” Thompson said.
Ellie