April 16, 2007
U.S. Military Dangerously Small
National Review Online: U.S. Vulnerable To New Threats Abroad
-
Play CBS Video Video Troops To Stay Longer CBS News Military Analyst Mike Lyons weighs in on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' announcement that the U.S. government plans to extend military tours in Iraq.
-
Video Extended Duty Plan Unveiled Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled a new policy that will keep active duty Army soliders in Iraq and Afghanistan deployed for three extra months. Susan Roberts reports.
-
U.S. soldiers with the 1st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade scan rooftops looking for a sniper in Baghdad's Haifa street, March 19, 2007. (PATRICK BAZ/AFP/Getty Images)
-
Interactive Military 101 Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon was extending the tours of most active-duty Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Our forces are stretched, there’s no question about that,” he said. No kidding. More than five years after September 11, the United States is still fighting wars with a military little changed from September 10.
The extensions were necessary in order to give troops a full year between combat tours. But the military should not have confronted a choice between extending tours and giving troops less than a year at home. President Bush has had half a decade to bring troop numbers to adequate levels. He hasn’t, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey offered a distressing summary of the consequences in his latest assessment of the security conditions in Iraq: “The U.S. Armed Forces cannot sustain the current deployment rate. We will leave [the U.S.] at risk to other threats from new hostile actors if we shatter the capabilities of our undersized and under-resourced Army, Marine, and special operations forces…If we do not aggressively rebuild[,] the capability of the force actually deployed in Iraq will also degrade[,] and we are likely to encounter a disaster.” Blame cannot be pinned entirely on Bush. Bill Clinton, lucky inheritor of the Cold War victory his predecessors won, took an eight-year holiday from reality. Not only did he drastically reduce the manpower of the armed forces, he also neglected the procurement of new weapons, ships, planes, and vehicles. Today’s diminished military reflects this dereliction.
And it is diminished. From 1974 to 1989, the Army had 770,000 to 780,000 active troops (all of them volunteers). Today, we have around 508,000. The Navy had 568 ships in the late 1980s; today it has 276, and its manpower is so reduced that it often has to helicopter sailors from homebound ships to outbound ones in order to keep them staffed. The Air Force’s number of tactical air wings has shrunk from 37 to 20, and the average age of its aircraft is 24 years (as compared with nine years in 1973).
There is disagreement about whether the armed forces should be restored to their Cold War size, but there is consensus among military analysts across the political spectrum that they are too small. Today’s strategic environment requires them to be able to engage in multiple regional wars and peacekeeping operations simultaneously, and still have enough resources left over to deter threats and respond to unforeseen dangers. Suppose, for example, that Kim Jong Il’s regime collapsed tomorrow. The stabilization of the Korean Peninsula — and the attempt to orient it toward Washington rather than Beijing — would probably require the deployment of a large U.S. peacekeeping force. But this would be impossible, given the ongoing commitments in the Middle East that we already struggle to sustain. These commitments will sooner or later end, but the War on Terror will last much longer. Meanwhile, China’s ability to threaten the U.S. will only increase — and so must our ability to deter it.
To Bush’s credit, the Defense Department added 30,000 troops to the Army between 2000 and 2006, and it proposes adding 30,000 more over the next five years. This is a good start, but only that. And it does not even begin to address the procurement crisis. As former senator Jim Talent recently argued in National Review, the military cannot maintain its readiness without raising the procurement budget by at least $30 billion per year over the current level.
What’s lamentable is that President Bush didn’t move immediately after 9/11 to rebuild the military. Now, with Democrats in the majority and his approval ratings at a nadir, it’s much harder politically. In all likelihood, the task will fall on the shoulders of the next president. Mitt Romney has called for adding 100,000 soldiers and boosting defense spending to four percent of GDP. These are sensible proposals, and we hope the other GOP candidates make similar ones.
The Left will raise its usual objection — that the U.S. spends more on defense than countries such-and-such combined (an argument countered easily enough by noting that law enforcement spends more than criminals so-and-so combined). And the increase in defense spending under Bush — which has gone primarily toward operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has done almost nothing to boost the military’s size and capability — will give the Left an opening to say, “You need even more?”
The answer is yes. History has an annoying tendency not to end, and the world today is an exceptionally dangerous place. There is no excuse for remaining unprepared.
By the editors of National Review Online
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
More From Opinion
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 88 CommentsIraq, is not a rapid reaction; especially after May 2003 declaration of mission accomplished. This is a long term support operation.
By definition, Pres Bush SHOULD have gone back to congress and asked for more troops, supplies, etc. to STAY in Iraq, longer than the rapid reaction. He did not; as that would have required him to admit that this was NOT a reaction to a terrorist threat, that he and Cheney were lying about the troops being home by the end of 2003. In fact they are using State National guard and reserves to supplement the forces that are supposed to be home by now.
There is a procedure in our government, Bush asks for troops for the support operation. If necessary, they (the Pres and Congress) authorize a draft.
This problem, like the others is caused by Bush NOT wanting to be held responsible for his actions. Maybe if he would bother to read the constitution rather than think he is above it ....
Just think of it. No more war. No more Red tape for veterans. Soldiers, making $100,000 a year. It would be fantastic. They probably would get government pensions instead of Social Security.
People who don't raise their voices against the treasonous actions of this admin are culpable and history will look upon this time as the time Americans chose to allow a killing field in Iraq and did nothing but follow like sheep.
%u201CA nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.%u201D - Edward R. Murrow
A resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.Thomas Hardy (1840-1928)
Please don't let them sign up for the Navy! And I think citizenship should be granted only if they get killed...posthumously.
The rest should be able to save enough money in four years to retire in their home country.
Did you know that the Bush Administration has been back filling Ranger Units with Three Week trained Troops that go to a Ranger Familiarization course and then are back filled in Ranger Units to fill up the unit strength so they can deploy them! These are not Black Tab Rangers but soldiers that are Pre-Rangers just to fill a Ranger Slot and forced to go into combat without the full Black Tab Training Course! DO ANY OF YOU THINK THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO TRAIN AND COMMIT OUR TROOPS INTO BATTLE? Currently over 25 percent of Ranger companies are not filled by Fully School Trained Rangers!
If you think Americas sacrifice is worth it contact your ELECTED OFFICIAL and tell them http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Th
e House Speakers email address: AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
info@go
p.com Here is the Republican Party email address too!
democraticparty@democrats.org Here is the Democratic Party email address also!
Nah I would not believe the prince of Egypt thing would you? I do have a bridge for sale if you are interested....
Source: the "Rumsfeld Doctrine"
ajaxrose is just a troll.
Posted by torocaca at 02:42 PM
and in fact, if he had had his way, he would have rolled into Iraq with as few as 18,000 troops to start the war. Imagine that!
Posted by down-ndirty
I understnad the point you are making. But for the record, on ship or shore, we the Navy will always fight like "sailors". If you get the chance, Google "Navy Riverines". We are doing the same mission we did in vietnam. That being Coastal and inland waterway warfare.
Posted by down-ndirty
Fella, you don't need to school me. I have know the Powell doctrine since GW I. I love the guy and wish he was our President. As I said, Read Cobra II, It is all you need to know. And yes, shame on Rumsfeld. Shame on anyone who wants to make my job harder and more dangerous than it needs to be. For most of the public, we the Military is the nations fire extinguiser. They ignor us and don't care until it is needed or politically popular to support and or bash us. I have been in the game for 18 years and have seen how we have changed. The military of today is the result of what the public wanted after the cold war ended. Yes, it is both Dem and a Reub problem. Thing is, no one has the guts to say we need to do what it takes to make our Military strong again.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 88 Comments