thedrifter
01-27-04, 10:05 AM
Issue Date: January 26, 2004
Is the military too small?
Pentagon-Congress feud brews over troop strength
By William Matthews
Special to the Times
As Congress gets set to open a new session, a growing number of lawmakers are coming back with plans to increase the size of the military.
With 24 of 33 active-duty Army combat brigades deployed during 2003, a stop-loss order barring soldiers from leaving active duty while deployed, and tour extensions for reservists that keep them on duty in Iraq for a year or more, lawmakers say the military — and especially the Army — is stretched too thin.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has a much different view. To him, boosting military end strength threatens to divert billions of dollars from weapons modernization, because adding troops locks in long-term spending requirements at a time when defense budgets are expected to peak and possibly decline.
The battle lines are drawn as Congress returns to work from its winter holiday. Lawmakers tried to increase the size of the Army substantially in 2003, but were able in the fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization Act to add only 2,400 soldiers. But already, more than two dozen House Democrats support a bill to add 40,000 soldiers, 28,700 airmen and 15,000 Marines to the active-duty ranks.
An even larger group — 128 House members from both parties, including nearly every member of the House Armed Services Committee — wrote to President Bush in November, urging him to “significantly increase the number of people on active duty in the military.”
Harald Stavenas, spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee, said the implications are clear: “I can’t see how it won’t be an issue this year. Every member of the committee is on record as saying they want an end-strength increase.”
A senior Senate aide said this will be one of the “top three” defense issues this year. “Members are becoming more and more frustrated over how the National Guard and reserve are being utilized,” the aide said.
Trying again
Senators almost won a larger increase in Army troop strength last year, but a measure to add 10,000 troops to the Army was killed by the appropriations conference committee. Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who pushed the increase, aren’t about to let go of the issue, aides said, but it is uncertain whether they will reintroduce last year’s amendment or try another legislative tack this year. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., supported personnel increases in 2002 and 2003 and continues to do so, an aide said.
Under so much pressure, cracks are beginning to form in the administration’s approach to the issue.
In December, Rumsfeld still was saying, “The military leadership isn’t clamoring for more troops. If at any moment there was an analysis that suggested one of the services was too small, obviously we would recommend an increase in it. We just don’t have that kind of analysis at the present time. And I don’t believe anyone else does.”
But by January, he had begun to shift the terms of the debate. Rather than simply denying the services need more troops, Rumsfeld said he may have to do some “rebalancing” of the existing force.
“Experience thus far in the global war on terror ... has shown that we have somewhat of a Cold War mix of active and reserve forces, and we really do need to adjust it to reflect the circumstances of this new century,” Rumsfeld said during a briefing at the Pentagon.
At his instruction, the services are busy drawing up plans for a new balance between active-duty and reserve forces. Rumsfeld did not say when the plans would be completed, but Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, hinted at the outcome during the same briefing.
He said rebalancing plans are likely to call for increasing the number of often-used units, such as military police, civil-affairs troops and logistics specialists, while eliminating some seldom-used forces, such as reserve artillery units.
The plans also may propose shifting some capabilities from the reserves to the active-duty military and vice versa.
Armed with such rebalancing plans, the administration again might persuade Congress to delay increasing the size of the force, congressional aides said.
‘Not necessarily the answer’
That might not be a bad thing, said Jack Spencer, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Simply adding manpower is not necessarily the answer,” he said.
Troop increases approved this year could not be employed before 2005, but it would take at least two years to recruit and train enough people to make a difference. Only a small contingent would be ready for service by 2007, Spencer said.
He instead suggests redeploying all 8,000 U.S. troops assigned to peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and redirecting those positions for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“People are expensive,” he said. About two-thirds of the defense budget is spent on personnel and operating costs, and the Iraq war suggests investments in weapons may yield greater dividends than investments in more people.
Spencer noted that the United States fought the 1991 Persian Gulf War with a total force of 500,000 troops, while the more recent conflict was fought with a force roughly half that size “and a lot more technology.”
Jay Farrar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington offers another compelling budgetary reason to resist increasing the size of the force: Real increases in defense spending are unlikely in another year or two. Increasing end strength will only make it harder for the military to deal with tighter budgets.
The Senate aide agreed. “If Congress adds people, it will have to add money,” he said. “That will be our challenge.”
Translation: The money must come from somewhere, and that means “other priority issues,” which usually means weapons.
Rep. Ellen Taus-cher, D-Calif., said she has a solution to both the manpower problem and the budget crunch. She introduced legislation in December to increase the size of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps — but only for five years. The increase would cost $3 billion to $4 billion, a Tauscher aide said.
“We understand it’s expensive,” Tauscher said. She, too, said the cost of additional troops might be paid with cuts from other parts of the defense budget.
Her bill has attracted 25 co-sponsors — all Democrats. Republicans were asked to sign on but declined, the aide said.
But Tauscher and her allies have found an issue where they may have the upper hand. And the momentum may be in the Democrats’ favor. Scores of Republicans were among those who wrote to Bush in November, urging him to increase the size of the military and review the mix of missions and specialties in the active and reserve components.
“We feel that your budget should include a buildup to two more combat divisions,” said the letter, written by Reps. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., and Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
Cooper co-sponsored Tauscher’s bill, but Wilson did not.
Enrique Knell, a spokesman for Wilson, said she is waiting to see how the administration will respond before deciding whether to support the Tauscher bill or any other measure to boost end strength. One Wilson concern is that Tauscher’s bill calls for only temporary force increases. The war on terrorism requires long-term force increases, Knell said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has complained for a decade that the military is too small, but he also thinks temporary force increases are the wrong way to go, said Stavenas, the committee spokesman.
Like Wilson, Hunter is waiting to see how the administration responds to congressional calls for end-strength increases. That will become clear when the 2005 defense budget request is sent to Congress in early February.
But Hunter is not optimistic. “No one expects there to be two more divisions in [the budget request],” Stavenas said.
William Matthews is a staff writer for Defense News.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2554376.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Is the military too small?
Pentagon-Congress feud brews over troop strength
By William Matthews
Special to the Times
As Congress gets set to open a new session, a growing number of lawmakers are coming back with plans to increase the size of the military.
With 24 of 33 active-duty Army combat brigades deployed during 2003, a stop-loss order barring soldiers from leaving active duty while deployed, and tour extensions for reservists that keep them on duty in Iraq for a year or more, lawmakers say the military — and especially the Army — is stretched too thin.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has a much different view. To him, boosting military end strength threatens to divert billions of dollars from weapons modernization, because adding troops locks in long-term spending requirements at a time when defense budgets are expected to peak and possibly decline.
The battle lines are drawn as Congress returns to work from its winter holiday. Lawmakers tried to increase the size of the Army substantially in 2003, but were able in the fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization Act to add only 2,400 soldiers. But already, more than two dozen House Democrats support a bill to add 40,000 soldiers, 28,700 airmen and 15,000 Marines to the active-duty ranks.
An even larger group — 128 House members from both parties, including nearly every member of the House Armed Services Committee — wrote to President Bush in November, urging him to “significantly increase the number of people on active duty in the military.”
Harald Stavenas, spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee, said the implications are clear: “I can’t see how it won’t be an issue this year. Every member of the committee is on record as saying they want an end-strength increase.”
A senior Senate aide said this will be one of the “top three” defense issues this year. “Members are becoming more and more frustrated over how the National Guard and reserve are being utilized,” the aide said.
Trying again
Senators almost won a larger increase in Army troop strength last year, but a measure to add 10,000 troops to the Army was killed by the appropriations conference committee. Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who pushed the increase, aren’t about to let go of the issue, aides said, but it is uncertain whether they will reintroduce last year’s amendment or try another legislative tack this year. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., supported personnel increases in 2002 and 2003 and continues to do so, an aide said.
Under so much pressure, cracks are beginning to form in the administration’s approach to the issue.
In December, Rumsfeld still was saying, “The military leadership isn’t clamoring for more troops. If at any moment there was an analysis that suggested one of the services was too small, obviously we would recommend an increase in it. We just don’t have that kind of analysis at the present time. And I don’t believe anyone else does.”
But by January, he had begun to shift the terms of the debate. Rather than simply denying the services need more troops, Rumsfeld said he may have to do some “rebalancing” of the existing force.
“Experience thus far in the global war on terror ... has shown that we have somewhat of a Cold War mix of active and reserve forces, and we really do need to adjust it to reflect the circumstances of this new century,” Rumsfeld said during a briefing at the Pentagon.
At his instruction, the services are busy drawing up plans for a new balance between active-duty and reserve forces. Rumsfeld did not say when the plans would be completed, but Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, hinted at the outcome during the same briefing.
He said rebalancing plans are likely to call for increasing the number of often-used units, such as military police, civil-affairs troops and logistics specialists, while eliminating some seldom-used forces, such as reserve artillery units.
The plans also may propose shifting some capabilities from the reserves to the active-duty military and vice versa.
Armed with such rebalancing plans, the administration again might persuade Congress to delay increasing the size of the force, congressional aides said.
‘Not necessarily the answer’
That might not be a bad thing, said Jack Spencer, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Simply adding manpower is not necessarily the answer,” he said.
Troop increases approved this year could not be employed before 2005, but it would take at least two years to recruit and train enough people to make a difference. Only a small contingent would be ready for service by 2007, Spencer said.
He instead suggests redeploying all 8,000 U.S. troops assigned to peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and redirecting those positions for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“People are expensive,” he said. About two-thirds of the defense budget is spent on personnel and operating costs, and the Iraq war suggests investments in weapons may yield greater dividends than investments in more people.
Spencer noted that the United States fought the 1991 Persian Gulf War with a total force of 500,000 troops, while the more recent conflict was fought with a force roughly half that size “and a lot more technology.”
Jay Farrar of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington offers another compelling budgetary reason to resist increasing the size of the force: Real increases in defense spending are unlikely in another year or two. Increasing end strength will only make it harder for the military to deal with tighter budgets.
The Senate aide agreed. “If Congress adds people, it will have to add money,” he said. “That will be our challenge.”
Translation: The money must come from somewhere, and that means “other priority issues,” which usually means weapons.
Rep. Ellen Taus-cher, D-Calif., said she has a solution to both the manpower problem and the budget crunch. She introduced legislation in December to increase the size of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps — but only for five years. The increase would cost $3 billion to $4 billion, a Tauscher aide said.
“We understand it’s expensive,” Tauscher said. She, too, said the cost of additional troops might be paid with cuts from other parts of the defense budget.
Her bill has attracted 25 co-sponsors — all Democrats. Republicans were asked to sign on but declined, the aide said.
But Tauscher and her allies have found an issue where they may have the upper hand. And the momentum may be in the Democrats’ favor. Scores of Republicans were among those who wrote to Bush in November, urging him to increase the size of the military and review the mix of missions and specialties in the active and reserve components.
“We feel that your budget should include a buildup to two more combat divisions,” said the letter, written by Reps. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., and Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
Cooper co-sponsored Tauscher’s bill, but Wilson did not.
Enrique Knell, a spokesman for Wilson, said she is waiting to see how the administration will respond before deciding whether to support the Tauscher bill or any other measure to boost end strength. One Wilson concern is that Tauscher’s bill calls for only temporary force increases. The war on terrorism requires long-term force increases, Knell said.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has complained for a decade that the military is too small, but he also thinks temporary force increases are the wrong way to go, said Stavenas, the committee spokesman.
Like Wilson, Hunter is waiting to see how the administration responds to congressional calls for end-strength increases. That will become clear when the 2005 defense budget request is sent to Congress in early February.
But Hunter is not optimistic. “No one expects there to be two more divisions in [the budget request],” Stavenas said.
William Matthews is a staff writer for Defense News.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2554376.php
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: