PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Army Plans Boost of 30,000 Forces



scoone
01-29-2004, 08:50 AM
Wed January 28, 2004 10:43 PM ET
WASHINGTON (*******) - The U.S. Army, strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, will boost its forces by 30,000 through emergency authority it expects to last four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told Congress on Wednesday.

But Schoomaker, testifying to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, rejected calls from lawmakers for a permanent increase in forces, saying it would undermine efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.

"Right now, I've been given the authority by the secretary of defense to grow the Army by 30,000 people within the authority he has under the emergency powers," Schoomaker said. He said the authority from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was to last for four years.

Schoomaker also told lawmakers that the Army was drawing up plans for additional force rotations to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq into 2006.

This comes as the Army launches its biggest rotation of troops since World War II that will draw down forces in Iraq by this spring to 105,000 from about 130,000.

He said the rotation plans were intended to meet possible contingencies and that the White House would make all decisions on military involvement in Iraq.

The Army is already about 11,000 soldiers over the 482,000 troop limit authorized by Congress under the emergency provision the Pentagon invoked, largely through "stop-loss" orders that block soldiers from leaving or retiring and through re-enlistment incentives.

Schoomaker told reporters after the hearing the Army would move quickly to add nearly 20,000 more forces, saying, "We want to achieve it as quickly as we can."

He said money for the additional troops would come from the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan Congress passed in November.

Schoomaker said he wanted the additional troops to be incorporated into the Army's efforts to transform itself into a lighter, more mobile force for post-Cold War conflicts.

He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Army's authorized troop levels, which he said would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes.
"What I stress again is we should not make a commitment for a permanent end-strength (troop) increase at this time," Schoomaker said. He said that would result in the kind of bloated, poorly trained force that plagued the Army in the 1970s.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, said the Pentagon seemed to be ducking its obvious need for more manpower in order to save money for the Bush administration's priorities, such as developing a missile defense system.

"We cannot put the strain on our military and on our American people just because we insist ideologically to keep the budget the way it is," Tauscher said. "My concern is that the Constitution says the Congress is the one that puts up the military. We need to be fully involved in this."

She is pushing legislation to increase the size of the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps for five years at an estimated cost of up to $4 billion.


http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UFWNPIBMRBZICCRBAEKSFFA?type=domesticNews&storyID=4234452

WARPIG
01-29-2004, 09:24 AM
Because she obviously knows how to operate and maintain Army Readiness better than the General. rofl

2Sheds_Jackson
01-29-2004, 02:43 PM
That's interesting that a Demorcrat would be pushing military expansion so hard. Her district must be heavy with defense contractors and/or military bases - 'cause that's contrary to what Dems are usually after.

I can see the General's point. With increased numbers come increased support etc & the money gets spent on non-productive things. The Army obviously isn't happy with the way they are currently structured. It's prolly better to restructure, then boost numbers if needed.

James
01-29-2004, 08:35 PM
Travis Air Force base is in her district. Between military and civilian personnel, more than 14,000 people work there. Lockheed Martin has operations in several cities close by.

army cadet_ngcsu
01-29-2004, 08:58 PM
The Army would not care what some Democratic congresswoman has to say. If they believe it is in their best interest to increase the size of the Army, the Army will. I just heard a couple days ago that Rumsfeld agreed that the Army needed to be expanded and quite frankly, I agree with him. Either that or we need to pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo and let the Europeans handle their own backyard. Didn't Ol' Rummy disband 2 divisions back in 2000 stating that they were not needed? He seems to like to put alot of emphasis on air power and technology and it is very well-known that he has always had problems with the Army brass.

2Sheds_Jackson
01-29-2004, 10:37 PM
The Army would not care what some Democratic congresswoman has to say. If they believe it is in their best interest to increase the size of the Army, the Army will.

I've got to disagree with you on that point. Since our money comes from congress, we (unfortunately) do have to care what these people think. They vote our budgets. We can't just march into the treasury dept. & demand $40 billion, all in 20's. But that would be sweet. :)

FallenAngel
01-30-2004, 12:05 AM
The Army would not care what some Democratic congresswoman has to say. If they believe it is in their best interest to increase the size of the Army, the Army will. I just heard a couple days ago that Rumsfeld agreed that the Army needed to be expanded and quite frankly, I agree with him. Either that or we need to pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo and let the Europeans handle their own backyard. Didn't Ol' Rummy disband 2 divisions back in 2000 stating that they were not needed? He seems to like to put alot of emphasis on air power and technology and it is very well-known that he has always had problems with the Army brass.

Most of those cuts where due to the Clinton adminstration. You just don't wake up one morning and disband 2 whole divisions. It's a long and meticulous process I am sure. For comparison, in 1991, the US Army had 18 active divisions. In 2002, they had 10. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? :roll: The Reserves also took some cuts too if I remember. Course, maybe that's partly due to the Army not meeting their enlistment quotas year after year. The USMC is the only service that regularily does (and believe me, THEY are not getting any bigger. They got a system down and they are sticking with it.)

AOCBravo2004
01-30-2004, 01:10 AM
="FallenAngelMost of those cuts where due to the Clinton adminstration. You just don't wake up one morning and disband 2 whole divisions. It's a long and meticulous process I am sure. For comparison, in 1991, the US Army had 18 active divisions. In 2002, they had 10. Who was in charge from 1992-2000? :roll: The Reserves also took some cuts too if I remember. Course, maybe that's partly due to the Army not meeting their enlistment quotas year after year. The USMC is the only service that regularily does (and believe me, THEY are not getting any bigger. They got a system down and they are sticking with it.)

Actually George H. Bush was President in 1992. Clinton was not inaugurated until Jan of 93.

George

FallenAngel
01-30-2004, 04:07 AM
Actually George H. Bush was President in 1992. Clinton was not inaugurated until Jan of 93.

George

Ok, you got me. I was off by a few months. Let me rearrange it to satisfy you. 1993-2001 :roll: