Congress pushes for larger military

[Seraphim]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=5&u=/usatoday/20031212/ts_usatoday/12067033


By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

Members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in the size of the active-duty military in 16 years, despite resistance from the Pentagon (news - web sites).


Call-ups of part-time troops from the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve to fill the ranks in Iraq (news - web sites) have intensified the bipartisan sentiment that the Pentagon doesn't have enough troops to fight an extended war on terrorism while keeping enough well-rested, well-trained troops ready for an emergency.


"Momentum is building in Congress for" an increase, says Harald Stavenas, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "Finally, everyone has come around to see enough is enough."


"This recognizes the reality in the strain and the stretch in all the services," says Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Skelton promises "positive action by our committee early next year."


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld strongly opposes increasing the size of the military on the grounds that the services are not efficiently using the personnel they already have, and increasing the number of troops is enormously expensive. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita says Rumsfeld "hasn't seen any analysis that convinces him there is a need" for a large increase in active-duty troops.


If Congress forces the administration to add troops, it would mark a turning point in the downsizing of the active-duty military that began before the end of the Cold War. These forces peaked at 2.2 million in 1987 and fell back slightly because of budget concerns. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 speeded up the cuts, shrinking the force to just under 1.5 million troops in 1998, where it has remained.


For years, Congress has generally deferred to the Pentagon on troop strength. But there appears to be growing concern over the issue, even among Republicans. Among the signs of a shift:


• Congress agreed this year to spend $68 million to increase the Army by 2,400 slots, about 0.5% of the current 480,000-strong force.


• A bill has been introduced in the House to increase the size of the Army, Marines and Air Force by roughly 8% over five years. The bill would add 40,000 troops to the Army, bringing it to 522,400, while the Air Force would grow by 28,700 to 388,000 and the Marines by 15,000 to 190,000. "If the administration is going to deploy thousands of troops across the globe, the size of our military needs to reflect that," says Rep. Ellen Tauscher (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., author of the bill.


• Fifty-four of the 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee, joined by the top Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, have sent President Bush (news - web sites) a letter urging him to expand the U.S. combat force. The letter also asks Bush to reassess the ratio between active and reserve forces used in long deployments because of concerns that the military is overly reliant on the Guard and Reserve in the war on terrorism.


The drive to deal with the issue appears stronger in the House, where Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo., the No. 3 Republican leader, plans to push for action early next year. But the Senate has similar concerns.


"We are dangerously stretched thin in the Army and the other services," says Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., a West Point graduate.

[Seoulstriker]

reserve forces are enough. oh wait, the politicians don't like reserve forces. let's increase active duty members. :roll:

damn politicians. as Yoda said in the Empire Strikes Back, "To Rumsfeld you listen!"

[Argyll]

Amazing you want yours bigger and we're wanting ours smaller!!
Way to go Tony you moron!!!

[Roger Rabbit]

It does make you wonder if perhaps a character like George Bush might be better for the UK if only put in place for 4 years. Its getting increasingly depressing when you cannot find a single politician you want to vote for.

[marktigger]

how do we get statehood?

[army cadet_ngcsu]

We've needed a bigger military since 1996. If we are going to take on all of these peace keeping operations (Bosnia, Kosovo, Liberia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq) there is no doubt in my mind that we are going to have to increase the amry or marines by a division or two.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Amazing you want yours bigger and we're wanting ours smaller!!
Way to go Tony you moron!!!

Britains future army: Martin and I in a box cart (It's our mobile armor unit)

Britains future navy: Martin and I in a dingy.

Britains future airforce: Martin and I flying kites

[Seiyuuki]

Members of Congress from both parties are pushing for the first significant increase in the size of the active-duty military in 16 years, despite resistance from the Pentagon (news - web sites).

Is it just me or is it not interesting that Congress which mean politicians are pushing for a bigger active military and the Pentagon does not.

[FallenAngel]

During the first Gulf War, wasn't there something like 18 active Army divisions? During the Clinton years it shrank down to only 10. :(

My only thing would be to increase funding of the Marine corps instead of adding more troops. 30+ year old AAVs and Sea Knights need replacing with the AAAV and V-22s or other craft pretty soon.

[Pojo]

Excellent first preparations for the "China Resolution" are beginning to take shape.

:bash:

[Zach R.]

After George H.W. Bush left office, there were 18 active duty divisions, and 9 reserve divisions. There were also 13 active duty air squadrons, and 6 reserve squadrons. After Clinton left office, that number had nearly declined by half. There were only 12 remaining active divisions, and 6 reserve divisions. And again, the number of active duty squadrons was reduced to a mear 8. Whilst the reserve squadrons totaled to a skipity-doo-dah 4. And the protesters are blaming Bush for the soldiers dieing over there. I'm not blaming the jackass Clinton for the dead soldiers, but it certainly woudn't have taken this long if he had left those divisions in place. :bash:

[army cadet_ngcsu]

Clinton was a real asshole militarily

[mocking_loudly_died]

Vote in the Green party.

Should be a laugh.

[aktarian]

Clinton was a real asshole militarily

I'm not an American and would like if somebody would explain to me something, preferablly without flame wars. At every military forum you hear how Clinton ruined the armed forces, cut their funding, shrunk it and did more horible things to it that Maichael Jackson dos to children. Yet within a year of taking office Bush was able to occupy afghanistan and Iraq shortly after. Can somebody explain to me how did Bush turn this decaying force inherited from Clinton to such force as it is today?

Any explanation would be greatly apreciated.

[NcDeuce]

After George H.W. Bush left office, there were 18 active duty divisions, and 9 reserve divisions. There were also 13 active duty air squadrons, and 6 reserve squadrons. After Clinton left office, that number had nearly declined by half. There were only 12 remaining active divisions, and 6 reserve divisions. And again, the number of active duty squadrons was reduced to a mear 8. Whilst the reserve squadrons totaled to a skipity-doo-dah 4. And the protesters are blaming Bush for the soldiers dieing over there. I'm not blaming the jackass Clinton for the dead soldiers, but it certainly woudn't have taken this long if he had left those divisions in place. :bash:

I agree. We need at least 6 more active duty divisions. More reserves. And an expansion of Special Ops, possible 2 or 3 more SF Groups.

[NcDeuce]

Clinton was a real asshole militarily

I'm not an American and would like if somebody would explain to me something, preferablly without flame wars. At every military forum you hear how Clinton ruined the armed forces, cut their funding, shrunk it and did more horible things to it that Maichael Jackson dos to children. Yet within a year of taking office Bush was able to occupy afghanistan and Iraq shortly after. Can somebody explain to me how did Bush turn this decaying force inherited from Clinton to such force as it is today?

Any explanation would be greatly apreciated.

NCO's teaching/training held it all together. Advance in technologies also helped.

[aktarian]

NCO's teaching/training held it all together. Advance in technologies also helped.

So Clinton didn't do as much damage as some claim?

[NcDeuce]

What do the NCO's have to do with Clinton?

[Argyll]

erm have there always not been NCO's conducting training?
Is it not NCO's and SNCO's who are the primary Instructors at boot camp?

[aktarian]

What do the NCO's have to do with Clinton?

That if militay was able to use trained NCOs then Clinton's action didn't have such dramaic ngative impact as some claim.

[NcDeuce]

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

[aktarian]

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

:cantbeli:

OK, if you don't want to answer just say so... I thought I was asking legitimate question. Guess this is too touchy topic and you don't want to answer. No problem.

[96B]

The main thing that Clinton did to hurt the military was cut the entire force by nearly half. Although there were going to be cuts in the post Cold War world anyways, Clinton did take it too far and because of this we are so stretched thin today. He also never did understand the military and its needs, case in point Operation Gothic Serpeant where TF Ranger was denied the Spectre gunships and armor support. I dont know enough about it to say that it was necessarily Clintons fault, but after the Cold War ended the CIA shifted almost entirely to SIGINT with regards to the Middle East and other areas. Bob Baer in his book See No Evil talks about how much dismantled our HUMINT capabilities became during the 90's particularly with the Middle East in that sometimes we only had a few people in each country whereas during the Cold War there were hundreds.

[aktarian]

I understand why people criticise him. What I don't understand is that people criticise him for making military nearly impotent yet Bush was able to win 2 not small victories in short time. The way I see it is either Bush reformed military really fast and corrected Clinton's mistakes or much of criticism directed at Clinton is unfounded. My original question was which one is it.

[Apogee]

I agree. We need at least 6 more active duty divisions. More reserves. And an expansion of Special Ops, possible 2 or 3 more SF Groups.

Hey High Speed. You'd be violating the 3rd and 4th Special Operations Truths. You can't just stand up Special Ops teams, especially not group sized assets, over night.


Humans are more important than Hardware.

Quality is better than Quantity.

Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.

Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

[Deuterium]

I agree. We need at least 6 more active duty divisions. More reserves. And an expansion of Special Ops, possible 2 or 3 more SF Groups.

Hey High Speed. You'd be violating the 3rd and 4th Special Operations Truths. You can't just stand up Special Ops teams, especially not group sized assets, over night.


Humans are more important than Hardware.

Quality is better than Quantity.

Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.

Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

You are learning young Jedi....

[Apogee]

Thank ya Top.

[NcDeuce]

I agree. We need at least 6 more active duty divisions. More reserves. And an expansion of Special Ops, possible 2 or 3 more SF Groups.

Hey High Speed. You'd be violating the 3rd and 4th Special Operations Truths. You can't just stand up Special Ops teams, especially not group sized assets, over night.


Humans are more important than Hardware.

Quality is better than Quantity.

Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.

Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

Yes, it will take a good while. That's why we're seeing all these Army and Air Force commercials emphasizing Special Ops.

[Deuterium]

I agree. We need at least 6 more active duty divisions. More reserves. And an expansion of Special Ops, possible 2 or 3 more SF Groups.

Hey High Speed. You'd be violating the 3rd and 4th Special Operations Truths. You can't just stand up Special Ops teams, especially not group sized assets, over night.


Humans are more important than Hardware.

Quality is better than Quantity.

Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.

Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.

Yes, it will take a good while. That's why we're seeing all these Army and Air Force commercials emphasizing Special Ops.

Maybe... But my guess is its far more sexier to show pictures of AFSOC guys jumping HALO, SEALS speeding away in Mark Vs, and SF riding horseback in A-stan than to show the reality of what 99.9% of recruits will wind up doing, wrenching, mopping, chipping paint. Recruiters ain't dumb. We need to get the guys into the recruiting stations.

[California Joe]

Increased spending for the military does not have anything to do with putting vests on Infantrymen. If it did it would be wonderful but it does not. Clinton mishandled the military. Somalia was a goatf*ck. but when increased spending equates to Boeing making obscene money leasing planes to the airforce and there are still military families on welfare the effect is void. The BTDT guys here all served during Clinton's tenure. Their morale may be better now under Bush but they all learned their craft previously. Does that mean they are less qualified? The President does not just arbitrarily cut entire active divisions you know. What kind of planet are you people living on?

[Ballistic]

Vote in the Green party.

Should be a laugh.

Australian Greenies ? If so.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, you have to be kidding me :lol: rofl

Please tell me you are !?

[Argyll]

Deuterium,
Great comment re the 99.9%,It's amazing to hear so many posters here say they will go the SOF route when they graduate,or leave school,too many are playing America's Army Online,and think that it's that easy to be SOF,but until they pull on that 1st pair of boots and Bergen weighing 60kg,and start tabbing 30km's a day,when the soles of their feet are raw and bleeding,and the friction burns on their backs are stuck to their vests,and it's pissing down with rain and freezing fu*kin cold,that they can't feel their fingers and the only way to get them warm is to piss on them,then they have no idea whatsoever what it's like to be a soldier never mind being SF!!
The Army always needs guys to paint the Motor Pool!! ;)

[Fioraon]

Clinton was a real asshole militarily

I'm not an American and would like if somebody would explain to me something, preferablly without flame wars. At every military forum you hear how Clinton ruined the armed forces, cut their funding, shrunk it and did more horible things to it that Maichael Jackson dos to children. Yet within a year of taking office Bush was able to occupy afghanistan and Iraq shortly after. Can somebody explain to me how did Bush turn this decaying force inherited from Clinton to such force as it is today?

Any explanation would be greatly apreciated.

Cause you can cut our founds, tie our hands behind our backs and still be the best damn military force on the earth.

(Yes I know, clearly an opinion. Of course it is, I said it.)