...Or is it simply a force structure problem??
We have all seen the reports and heard the news speculating that the U.S. military is having problems finding troops to deploy into both Iraq and Afghanistan all the while trying to keep up our military commitments around the numerous other spots the world over. From the majority of stories or two-line snip-its, one would get the idea that the military must be too small and needs to add more soldiers, sailors, airmen & marines fast and I might agree if I didnt do the kind of reading I do on a normal basis ( military history, tactics & equipment, etc.) but this assumption is wrong on many points.
Let's begin with the basic raw numbers. Currently, the total force levels (total end-strength) of the U.S. military sits in the neighborhood of bout 3 Million men and women in uniform (Active-duty, Reserves, Guard) with bout 1.4 Million serving in active duty units (not exactly doomand gloom numbers) yet problems have arisen with regards to maintaining the roughly 160,000 currently deployed into both Iraq & Afghanistan. Mathematiclly, that doesn't make sense to the layman on the street until one delves deeper at the causes of the problem. This isn't a matter of the military being too small (which it isn't) it's a matter of the current structure of the force geared around the old Cold War model which is somewhat of a hinderance to meet the current mission requirements for the War on Terror. We have far too many troops trained to fight the last war posted to the wrong places with the wrong skills needed for todays asymmetrical warfare.
Some may ask, what exactly does "Cold War Model" mean...well quite simply in military structure terms, it dictates that the military structure has units spread out amongst the three military status classifications (active, reserve,guard) and as such if a major conflict ever did break out (think China/Russia...not Iraq) the military couldn't fight it effectively without activating the guard and reserve units as well....I'm not sure if that was a clear enough answer for some as it is a difficult term to define but I hope it is. Is our military stretched due to current constraints....yes and Washington needs to rectify that situation fast but nothing in Washington ever happens fast (relative to the rest of the normal world anyway) and to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's credit, he has moved to initiate certain steps to alleviate the immediate problems such as moving more unit personnel from supply (which is important and may have some drawbacks ) to combat infantry slots increasing "trigger-pullers" per unit...but that is only a stopgap measure and has its limits as well. In the immediate future...Personally, I'm for this but the long term issues need to be addressed rationaly and not be clouded by idiotic rhetoric...in the end it would only hurt the military in the long run. But while the chain of command is attempting to solve their personnel issues, some political pundits and policy makers (mostly from the left....there's a shock) making some of the most BONEHEADED and outright idiotic ideas to come out in a while to 'Fix' the militaries problems....unfortunately most will not help in the least and cause more problems than their worth.
Bonehead Idea #1: Bring Back the Draft
This idea is so outdated and unsuitable for today's military needs it's real hard not to admit it's only reason being put forth is to scare people (Thank You Charlie Rangel-D-NY) for pure political reasons. As to the possibility of a return of the draft, forget it....pure bunk since many on both sides of the politica spectrum agree that to re-instate it now would most certainly require a constitional amendment ( a process that could take as little a 5 years as individual states vote on it-not exactly a quick remedy) ....political suicide not withstanding. During WW2, conscription made sense in a world engaged in a war, with roughly 10 million (nearly the entire draft-age male population) under arms. While 10 million troops may sound great today...and yes I have pondered the raw numbers....we don't need that much manpower and it would wind up being little more than a lottery for the unlucky. Even worse, conscript armies are notoriously less skilled, less cohesive and not cheap (theres the added cost to replace and re-train troops constantly, say every 2 years....the former U.S.S.R. was probably the best example of conscription disaster). Germany, for instance, has this kind of a military (as does most of our European 'allies')...and guess what...the Germans (as are other 'allies') have come to the realization that this type of military is totally unsuitable for todays needs and are seeking to move towards the U.S. militaries all-volunteer force model. The U.S. military today using an all-volunteer force is far more capable (personnel wise) than say it was during the conscription days of Vietnam or Korea. For these reasons...this idea best rests in the trashbin of military history.
Bonehead Idea #2: Don't Depend on Citizen Soldiers
When the military announced the call up of bout 5,600 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) the critics cried foul almost like clockwork. Noting that the IRR's don't do regular training the critics (or Bitchsayers as I like to use) attempted to depict these citizen soldiers akin to 'couch potatoes'. The line, "Dragging them off to war proves we don't have enough troops" was used by many. Contrary to the members of the useful idiot brigade, it proves the current personnel pool system works...we have a sizeable pool of reserves (bout 45% of the total force) set up for period like this when we need to rapidly expand. The problem isn't that we are sending citizen soldiers to fight our wars, the problem is we can't send more. The Pentagon has only tapped bout 5% of the IRR members for deployment and additional call-ups will be limited at best (few of the remaining 95% have the needed skills or equipment.) Some of the same problems discussed bout the IRR lie within the National Guard. Set during the Cold War, its main goal was to help fight World War 3 and as such is still loaded down with Armor/Artillery units for fighting pitched battles on the plains of Germany....but few units trained to chase Bin Laden in the hills of Afghanistan or police the streets of Iraq. If we had a more useable force make up in the reserves/guard, we could attain a more acceptable troop rotation overseas. But it isn't to date (when is the last time anyone spotted heavy armor from the guard activated by a state govenor on American streets? Granted...I think the gang-bangers, drug dealers, etc. would ponder surrendering to local authorities after looking down the barrel of a 120mm smoothbore cannon of a M1A2 Abrams but that just isn't done....even if on some level it may be tempting.)
Bonehead Idea #3: Add More Troops
At the end of each year, Congress sets the maximum number that may be in uniform for the military's 5 branches. Currently, lawmakers are toying with the 'wonderful' notion of increasing the military by bout 20,000 to 30,000 slots. At first glance, this may seem like the most appropriate course of action but the Pentagon is already swelling the ranks by 30,000 using long standing emergency personnel policies to temporarily increase the troop level. In fact the Pentagons own staff officer in charge of personnel argued RIGHTLY before congress that a perminent expansion is both unnecessary and highly expensive. Plus with say the 20,000 increase figure..one must remember the 1:4 ratio...for every front line combat infantryman, there is bout 3 behind him in support roles...leaving only 5,000 actual "trigger-pullers". Congress's approach also brings with it the added baggage as if it were a 20-year career: housing, medical care, retirement, etc. Plus when Iraq ramps down which it will regardless what the Bitchsayers out there say, the armed forces would be stuck with more troops than its mission protocols rquire and if their in the 'regular' forces...the military will either have to keep them all with the added expense or undergo a disruptive and costly downsizing. Anyone remember the morale problems during Clintons downsizing? How bout John F. Kerry's DNC Convention statement of "Adding 40,000 new troops"? So what are we to do? There are a few ideas out there right now...some may be well received, other's well they may just piss the hell off certain allies but I'm less concerned with keeping up international pleasantries with certain 'allies' as I am at getting our military back into the game at 100%.
1) A reasonable goal for the Guard/Reserve forces is to be able to tell them that at worst they would have to deploy every 3-5 years...after of course the whole 100% was revamped and re-trained with todays needed skills and equipment.....currently this has yet to be done.
2) Turn over ROTC training over to military retirees or Guard/Reserver personnel....this alone would freeup several thousand for re-assignment to combat units.
3) Trade in some Artillery/Armor units for more Military Police, Civil Affairs, and Special Forces units. Possibly even add/re-activate 3 to 5 new Armored Calvary Regiments (Light)...for use along the Iraqi borders/ quick reaction force...
4) Reduce our NATO commitment in western Europe (General Staff & Personnel)...the Cold War is over...the USSR is gone...and the Western Europeans still bitch when we publiclly considered redeploying those forces to Eastern Europe (which is strategiclly more important now) or Iraq/Afghanistan. Far too long the European nations have defended themselves on the cheap by relying on the US military always being there although they play the public anti-American rhetoric very good. If their egos get bruised by talking to a "lowly" 1 Star general instead of a 4 Star...who cares? Theres bout another 20,000 troops just right there!!!!!
5) Shifting units from the Guard/Reserve structure into the Active-duty may plug a few more gaps as well.
Ultimately its gonna take serious political will to overcome idiotic suggestions for fixing the military all the while getting what needs to be done....done. We shall see what takes shape in the near future.
::::::::UPDATE:::::::::::::
Recently, President Bush announced a major troop redeployment affecting between 60,000 and 70,000 from both the European and Asian theaters of command....as well as bout 100,000+ military family members and civilian contractors....where are they headed? Well most will certainly be headed for home to the US but some will also be headed for deployment into Eastern Europe in places such as Poland, Romania, Chezch Republic as Eastern Europe has become of much more Strategic importance than the West...to be sure troops will be still deployed in the West...just on a lower troop level and of a lighter make up...and while Kerry is publicly blasting this as politically motivated...the fact is that the re-deployments are the emd result of a 4 year study of total troop deployments the world over....and not some "political" spin like Kerry says...but he did get his 15 minutes of fame as his statement was plastered about the press.....frankly its bout time......but will this in anyway help us with the current problems? well the time frame given for the re-deployments are set to start in 2006 and take bout 10 years...so there is no immediate gain from it in anyway....but who knows....something may occure down the road