PDA

View Full Version : Bush’s Iraq plan may influence end-strength hike



thedrifter
01-30-07, 08:26 AM
Bush’s Iraq plan may influence end-strength hike

By Kimberly Johnson - Staff writer
Posted : February 05, 2007

Defense planners’ push to increase the Marine Corps’ end strength will likely get tangled in ongoing congressional debate swirling around President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, according to a defense analyst.

Overall, the Army and Marine Corps end-strength plans have been well-received on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill. But in the end, the push for more could come down to individual service needs.

The Corps’ attempt to add 22,000 to its current level of 180,000 may attract less controversy than the Army’s request for 39,000 added to its authorized level of 508,000, said Thomas Donnelly, an analyst with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

“The numbers are smaller,” he said. “Prospects are good overall, but there are plenty of potential pitfalls.”

The Corps’ chief is optimistic about lawmaker reception to the call for more Marines.

“We think they’ll support it,” Commandant Gen. James Conway told Marine Corps Times on Jan. 22. “There’s been some good support over there for us, even before this. I went to [the House Armed Services Committee] last week, and nobody shot me.”

Justifying the need for more Marines comes with a hefty price tag. The additional troops will add about $2.5 billion a year to the Corps’ budget, said Bob Work, a defense analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“That’s pretty substantial for a Marine Corps budget that’s normally around $16 billion to $18 billion,” he said.

The buildup of people would cut the number of back-to-back rotations.

“There’s no question the force is under tremendous strain,” Work said.

In some ways, the issue of an end-strength increase — plans call for adding 5,000 Marines annually — is already connected to Bush’s near-term Iraq troop buildup.

“It obviously goes beyond Iraq, but there is a need to relieve the pressure of Iraq rotations,” Donnelly said. “That could be a good thing, because Congress is not in the mood for things going badly in Iraq.”

The outcome with appropriators boils down to the overall political picture, Donnelly said, explaining that in addition to Iraq, political wrangling between parties, and Congress’ overall plan to trim budgets, will also play a role.

Lawmakers may be sympathetic to the Corps’ needs. Conway has explained to Congress why he needs a bigger Corps, said an aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on defense and a vocal Iraq war critic.

“Based upon that, Murtha supports it,” she said.

However, Murtha’s aide said she did not foresee the issue of the ongoing troop buildup having a bearing on the personnel increases.

“The need [for more troops] is there, but the need has always been there,” she said. “This war has shown that there’s no substitute for boots on the ground.”

Maintaining congressional support long term is key.

“The concern is that — particularly related to Iraq and if the war winds down any time soon — can you still count on funding,” said retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper.

The need is pronounced, however.

“For as many years as I can remember, no unit has ever been up to its full strength,” he said.

Lawmakers will face the temptation to slice away modernization dollars to pay for the increase, but the political battlefield is tilted toward the Marine Corps, Donnelly said. The Corps’ big-ticket items, such as the MV-22 Osprey, “are controversial in themselves,” he said. “But none of them presents the same juicy target as the [Future Combat System program] does for the Army.”

The Army’s $3 billion Future Combat System is a high-priced wish list of 14 next-generation manned and unmanned systems connected by a common network of sensors, non-line-of-sight munitions systems and mounted combat systems.

Another potential complication could come from within the Defense Department in the form of the Air Force’s $35 billion modernization request.

“It looks pretty audacious from a political standpoint,” because the Corps and the Army are doing all the fighting, Donnelly said.

However, a permanent increase to Corps end strength will not be enough to wean the service off its growing dependence on annual wartime supplemental spending bills, which include vital procurement funding to pay for equipment lost on the battlefield, Donnelly warned. “You still have to pay for wartime operations,” he said.

If congressional bean counters grant the Corps its increase this year, the justification debate will likely continue during the next presidential term. Should the next president decide to withdraw troops from Iraq, the urgency to maintain the staggered 5,000 Marines annual growth will lessen, Donnelly said.

“Land forces certainly have a much stronger case than they’ve had in the past. I just worry how the details play out.”

Ellie