2RHPZ
06-08-2004, 01:02 AM
More Boots On The Ground
NY Post
June 7, 2004
The Pentagon is reportedly preparing to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany, thus freeing them for more strategically significant regions. That makes sense; the fall of the Soviet Union 15 years ago substantially diminished the need for a huge American military presence in the heart of Europe.
Unfortunately, combined with the announcement last week that Army personnel whose enlistments expire while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will have their active duty extended until their units return home, maybe for months, this news sends an unhappy message:
That the Iraq mission has seriously taxed the U.S. military.
Yes, the American military is an all-volunteer force. Contrary to the heated rhetoric of Bush critics, those volunteers upon joining are told that extraordinary circumstances could cause their service time to be extended indefinitely.
"Hot" conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of other operations in the war on terror and ongoing peacekeeping missions across the world certainly qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances."
Even so, it has become obvious that the U.S. military, particularly the Army, needs to be expanded.
Yes, it seems that the 480,000-strong, 10-division regular Army ought to be able to commit 138,000 troops to a low-intensity war like Iraq. But that's not so.
But for every combat-capable brigade in Iraq or Afghanistan, another needs to be resting after deployment, and a third must be in training to replace the first.
The Army has asked for a temporary increase in "end-strength" of 30,000 troops, two new divisions, essentially to complete the stabilization of Iraq.
There is surprising agreement across the political spectrum on this issue.
Even John Kerry reportedly supports adding 40,000 active-duty troops to the Army. Like Army planners, he also says that it should only be "temporary."
Why?
No one can safely predict that the world will be stable enough in five or 10 years that the United States could start drawing down its troop strength.
After all, more than 50 years after the Korean War, thousands of U.S. troops are still stationed in South Korea.
The cost of adding more troops shouldn't really be a major consideration. In fact, it's an almost insignificant amount.
Fielding a division of 15,000 troops costs about $5 billion a year, less than a drop in the bucket in the $11 trillion U.S. economy.
Total defense spending is currently less than 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. One-half of 1 percent of GDP equals $55 billion.
So $5 billion a year is a small price for an essential investment in well-trained troops.
Contrast that with the financial and human cost of another successful terrorist attack on New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago.
For the long-term continued success of U.S. security and strategic aims, it's time to expand the U.S. Army permanently.
NY Post
June 7, 2004
The Pentagon is reportedly preparing to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany, thus freeing them for more strategically significant regions. That makes sense; the fall of the Soviet Union 15 years ago substantially diminished the need for a huge American military presence in the heart of Europe.
Unfortunately, combined with the announcement last week that Army personnel whose enlistments expire while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will have their active duty extended until their units return home, maybe for months, this news sends an unhappy message:
That the Iraq mission has seriously taxed the U.S. military.
Yes, the American military is an all-volunteer force. Contrary to the heated rhetoric of Bush critics, those volunteers upon joining are told that extraordinary circumstances could cause their service time to be extended indefinitely.
"Hot" conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of other operations in the war on terror and ongoing peacekeeping missions across the world certainly qualifies as "extraordinary circumstances."
Even so, it has become obvious that the U.S. military, particularly the Army, needs to be expanded.
Yes, it seems that the 480,000-strong, 10-division regular Army ought to be able to commit 138,000 troops to a low-intensity war like Iraq. But that's not so.
But for every combat-capable brigade in Iraq or Afghanistan, another needs to be resting after deployment, and a third must be in training to replace the first.
The Army has asked for a temporary increase in "end-strength" of 30,000 troops, two new divisions, essentially to complete the stabilization of Iraq.
There is surprising agreement across the political spectrum on this issue.
Even John Kerry reportedly supports adding 40,000 active-duty troops to the Army. Like Army planners, he also says that it should only be "temporary."
Why?
No one can safely predict that the world will be stable enough in five or 10 years that the United States could start drawing down its troop strength.
After all, more than 50 years after the Korean War, thousands of U.S. troops are still stationed in South Korea.
The cost of adding more troops shouldn't really be a major consideration. In fact, it's an almost insignificant amount.
Fielding a division of 15,000 troops costs about $5 billion a year, less than a drop in the bucket in the $11 trillion U.S. economy.
Total defense spending is currently less than 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. One-half of 1 percent of GDP equals $55 billion.
So $5 billion a year is a small price for an essential investment in well-trained troops.
Contrast that with the financial and human cost of another successful terrorist attack on New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago.
For the long-term continued success of U.S. security and strategic aims, it's time to expand the U.S. Army permanently.