Fears of Troops Spread Thin, Specter of the Draft

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

From the front page of today's Chicago Tribune. You will need to log in (use this as the username and password:dan67engr from bugmenot.com)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412030396dec03,1,6578822.story?coll=chi-news-hed (as a reminder, the Trib is usually a conservative paper that endorsed GW)

While at it, here is story about the troops in Iraq that just found out they are not coming home:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412030285dec03,1,5202563.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Fears grow of military spread thin
Expanded force needed, some say

By Michael Kilian
Washington Bureau
Published December 3, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's announcement this week that it will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 150,000 to provide more security for the Jan. 30 national election highlights a growing concern that America's armed services are dangerously overextended and possibly nearing a breaking point.

With nearly all of the Army's 10 divisions serving in Iraq, preparing for deployment there or refitting from a combat tour in that country, there are few forces available to deal with a new major threat or emergency, military experts say.

As Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said at a congressional hearing last month, "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested [for Iraq]. But I can't promise more than I've got."

The Army is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and maintaining a military presence in the Balkans, Germany, South Korea and other foreign countries with a total force of just under 500,000. It had more than 800,000 under arms when it waged the brief Persian Gulf war in 1991.

"You need a bigger Army if you're going to carry out the Bush national security strategy," said Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "Right now, you're really using the reserves at an unsustainable pace, and you're violating the norms that you have for deploying people overseas that you've established not only for equity but for retention."

The U.S. has more troops in all branches serving abroad than it averaged from 1950 to 2003, and three times as many overseas as it had in December 2001, according to a study by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

"If you look at the world--and what we're likely to see in the future in terms of potential threats and areas where we need to be involved, either to deter or actually conduct operations--I think it's clear that we need a larger force than what we have," said Michelle Flournoy, a former deputy assistant defense secretary now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has long maintained that the U.S. has been supplying all the troops the commanders in the field require. "If they ask for more troops, they'll get them," he said.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was pushed into early retirement and Army Secretary Thomas White resigned last year after they argued that the U.S. would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to maintain security after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Pentagon commanders have been reluctant to contradict Rumsfeld, on or off the record.

But in testimony last month before the House Armed Services Committee, Schoomaker hinted that an expanded force may be required, particularly because so much of the military burden is being borne by National Guard and reserve members who were considered part-time but have virtually become part of the active-duty force.

"If the Army National Guard or Army Reserve cannot muster and provide the formations that are required, perhaps we need to increase the size of the regular Army," Schoomaker told the committee.

The Defense Department announced this week that more than 183,000 National Guard and reserve troops are on active duty, compared with 79,000 on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Of the 138,000 troops still on duty in Iraq, 40 percent are Guard or reserve members.

For years the Pentagon operated on the theory that even with reduced force levels it could fight two "medium regional conflicts" simultaneously. Rumsfeld, who favors a leaner, more flexible military, has insisted the U.S. still has that capability. But increasingly that premise has come under question, and the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel for the defense secretary, has called for more manpower.

"While I don't think we're going to invade countries and attempt regime changes as a matter of routine," Flournoy said, "I do think it is likely that we'll need to engage in more than one theater at once, and the force we have today in terms of ground forces is not large enough."

Specter of the draft

The increasing seriousness of the situation emboldened Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to assert during the campaign that re-electing President Bush could mean bringing back the draft.

"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same, and the potential is great for a return to the draft," he said in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

To rebut that assertion, House Republicans arranged an election-eve vote on a reinstatement of the draft that saw it defeated 402-2, sending a clear signal that the idea was politically unpalatable.

While arguing against a draft, Kerry called for expanding the Army by two divisions, or about 40,000 troops, a position supported by Korb and Michael O'Hanlon, a national security specialist for the Brookings Institution think tank.

Rumsfeld has said more pay increases will be required if the Pentagon finds it necessary to add to the force. There also is a danger that recruiting standards might have to be lowered, as happened in the post-Vietnam era of the 1970s.

Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) successfully sponsored legislation for a permanent increase of the authorized ceiling on Army troop strength from 482,000 to 502,000. The administration already had used emergency powers to increase it to about 497,000, but only as a temporary measure.

The White House has refused to fund permanently an increase in troop strength out of the regular Defense Department budget, insisting that the money come out of special appropriations because the increase is temporary. Every 10,000 troops costs the U.S. about $1.2 billion a year.

"I find it baffling," said Reed, a West Point graduate and former captain in the 82nd Airborne Division. "You don't have to be a trained military strategist to know that you needed more people in Iraq, and the only way to have more people in Iraq is to have more people in the service."

Pay raise this year

As a recruiting and retention inducement, military personnel received a 3.5 percent pay raise this year, plus increases in housing allowances and other benefits. About 40,000 servicemen and women have been held in the military beyond their retirement or separation dates under emergency "stop loss" orders, or kept overseas beyond their transfer dates under "stop move" orders.

The Army National Guard achieved only 87 percent of its recruitment goal in the fiscal year that just ended. According to Lt. Gen. James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, the reserve is short about 5,000 captains--officers who fill vital roles as company commanders or perform other important duties in the field.

Reserve and National Guard units also are losing midlevel non-commissioned officers.

"There is no question that the pace of our nation at war challenges our Army," Schoomaker said.

- - -

Size of military drops in last three decades

The number of U.S. troops on active duty has decreased considerably since the end of the draft and the Cold War. Some experts say the military must grow to meet U.S. commitments overseas.

U.S. ACTIVE DUTY TROOPS All service branches, in millions, 1950-2004

1973: Draft ends; switch to all-volunteer military

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL

As of Sept. 30, by service branch

Total: 1.4 million

Air Force: 376,616

Army: 499,543

Marine Corps: 177,480

Navy: 373,197

COUNTRIES WITH MOST U.S. TROOPS BASED THERE*
As of Sept. 30

Total: 287,802

Germany 76,058

S. Korea 40,840

Japan 36,365

Italy 12,606

Britain 11,469

* About 170,000 U.S. troops are deployed in and around Iraq but have home bases elsewhere, including in the United States.

Source: Department of Defense

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Kennedy 0]

You saying you agree with Pat Buchanan?

A Rebulic, Not An Empire

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

You saying you agree with Pat Buchanan?

A Rebulic, Not An Empire

Where did I say that? Just a quick glance at that link has quite a few items on there. There is good chance I may agree with some and not others. What does that prove if I share an opinion or two with Buchanan?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Kennedy 0]

Oh nothing, I just like it when liberals have to face the fact that they agree with Buchanan. It really makes some people squirm.

I agree one must wonder how we will meet our current and future obligations. We are going to need bigger forces or fewer obligations. Neither will be easy, and maybe both would be a good idea at first, but he, nobody's asking me.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Flarelatedad 0]

Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy, speaks about the "'ism's" of our time.

30s-45 - Fascism - Axis nations defeated

Late 40s-90 - Comunism - Eastern Block countries. Our military was large and strong.

In the 90s with no threat we started down sizing "peace dividend".

2001 till ? - Terrorism. Do we need to re-invest in a large military? Do we still need the presence in the areas we have them (Germany/England/Japan)?

Do we need to shift our thinking with the new threat?

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Do we need to shift our thinking with the new threat?

No, you just need to check your priorities when assessing a potential threat. It would help if the money was not in the equation.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Why? If someone wanted to serve for this country they should do it on a volunteer basis. A draft allows politicians more room for error in their foreign policy because they will have countless soldiers to send to their death with irresonsible decisions. This administration has shown it cannot manage finite resources, why should the lives of the citizens be any different?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[stuffit 0]

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Nothing.

If there is cause to go to war. That doesnt happen to be the case.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Why? If someone wanted to serve for this country they should do it on a volunteer basis. A draft allows politicians more room for error in their foreign policy because they will have countless soldiers to send to their death with irresonsible decisions. This administration has shown it cannot manage finite resources, why should the lives of the citizens be any different?

Sounds to me like you are scared. If drafted would you go or run to Canada?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Nothing.

If there is cause to go to war. That doesnt happen to be the case.

If you are a US citizen, that's not your decision when it comes to the draft. Uncle Sam says you gotta go, then you gotta go. Either where he tells you or you run like a frightened kitten.

We should have a permanent draft where everybody serves at least 2 years.

[Superman32 0]

It's easy to send somebody elses child to war. Do you think that Bush's daughters would be drafted?

Inveniam Viam aut Faciam
I'm back biatches!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It's easy to send somebody elses child to war. Do you think that Bush's daughters would be drafted?

I don't know if they would. I think everyone should serve 2 years. No exemptions for anybody. If we are going to need troops to fight a war, then everyone pitches in.

edit: Probably ought to go ahead and institute the draft, send another 500,000 troops over there and lets get it done and then get out.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Nothing.

If there is cause to go to war. That doesnt happen to be the case.

If you are a US citizen, that's not your decision when it comes to the draft. Uncle Sam says you gotta go, then you gotta go. Either where he tells you or you run like a frightened kitten.

We should have a permanent draft where everybody serves at least 2 years.

Right - the people are the property of the state, to be disposed of as the state thinks fit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

You saying you agree with Pat Buchanan?

A Rebulic, Not An Empire

Even Buchanan recognizes a moron when he sees one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bring back the draft??

What's wrong with that?

You say it like it's a bad thing or something.

Nothing.

If there is cause to go to war. That doesnt happen to be the case.

If you are a US citizen, that's not your decision when it comes to the draft. Uncle Sam says you gotta go, then you gotta go. Either where he tells you or you run like a frightened kitten.

We should have a permanent draft where everybody serves at least 2 years.

Right - the people are the property of the state, to be disposed of as the state thinks fit.

No the individual has the right to leave the country. Hope those that choose to leave don't let the door hit them in the ass.
If you don't think the US is worth defending then get out. Nobody is stopping them. Hell, Canada would love to have them. Of course Canada has had a free ride on the US taxpayer long enough. It's about time they started paying up too.

BTW this is my last post for a week. I'm heading on a Cruise on the profits I made from my Haliburton stock. (Just kidding). See ya.

[tunaplanet 0]

How many times are you libs going to keep clinging to this draft myth. Democrats proposed it...got shot down in a landslide.

The draft will never happen.

And this nonsense about being spread out too thin? Not remotely close to being true.

Forty-two

[slug 1]

Quote

Oh nothing, I just like it when liberals have to face the fact that they agree with Buchanan. It really makes some people squirm.

I agree one must wonder how we will meet our current and future obligations. We are going to need bigger forces or fewer obligations. Neither will be easy, and maybe both would be a good idea at first, but he, nobody's asking me.

Draft?

If enough people with the "right stuff" enlist for god and country and do the right thing. We won't need a draft.

Know anyone who is unemployeed and looking for a challenging job that is young enough and good with a gun

Try it you might like it
R.I.P.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

How many times are you libs going to keep clinging to this draft myth. Democrats proposed it...got shot down in a landslide.

The draft will never happen.

Apparently you missed the fact that this came from a conservative newspaper. This is not coming from the liberals - this is coming from your side of the fence.

Quote

And this nonsense about being spread out too thin? Not remotely close to being true.

Apparently you want to discard the facts presented in the article?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Sounds to me like you are scared. If drafted would you go or run to Canada?

I doubt I would get drafted due to my age and a medical condition.

I'd take whatever punishment handed out when I would refuse to serve.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

No the individual has the right to leave the country. Hope those that choose to leave don't let the door hit them in the ass.

Not correct. The state can deny the individual the necessary documents to leave. Therefore it is NOT a right.

People are the chattel of the state, to be disposed of at the whim of the state. And it is getting worse as the state becomes more and more authoritarian.

George Orwell was correct in all but timing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[slug 1]

Quote

How many times are you libs going to keep clinging to this draft myth. Democrats proposed it...got shot down in a landslide.

The draft will never happen.

And this nonsense about being spread out too thin? Not remotely close to being true.

Agree with everything but your opinion being spread to thin. Sounds like folks being extended, sent back for second tour, stop loss, inactive reserves, etc.

Got any info to back up your claim about our troop strngth?

How about counciling some of the young folks in SC about are the benifits of serving their country, regardless of their liberal/conservative beliefs. Like some of the old farts did.

You know walk the walk instead of talk the talk.
Travel to exotic places, and meet people from other cultures

R.I.P.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

You know walk the walk instead of talk the talk.[.:/]
Travel to exotic places, and meet people from other cultures[.;)]

R.I.P.

Didn't you leave out the last line?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

I want to be the first kid on my block with a confirmed kill.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

I'd take whatever punishment handed out when I would refuse to serve.