Are the US Armed forces too small?

[Cromwell]

http://www.slate.com/id/2173031/nav/tap3/

 

Having read the above article in "Slate Magazine", I was sobered. In short,the article argues that the US must substantially reduce troop numbers in Iraq regadless of Congress or the political will of the present of next Administration for the simple reason that current troop strength is unsustainable. Yes the President could dip into the various Reserves, yes the draft is theoretically possible, but not very likely.

 

Now Wikipedia, that scion of truth and learning, states that US has

As of April 30, 2007 (women as of September 2006)

 

Service Total Active Duty Personnel (Percent of Total) Percentage Female Enlisted Officers

Army 507,082(36%) 14% 419,816 82,486

Marine Corps 180,000(13%) 6.2% 160,072 19,309

Navy 340,568 (24%) 14.9% 285,129 51,087

Air Force 340,921 (23%) 20.1% 268,252 68,373

Coast Guard 41,181 (3%) 10.7% 31,286 7,835

Total 1,426,713 (100%) 14.9% 1,133,269 221,255

 

If the US has 1.4miilion service personnel and cannot handle an medium sized insurgency for no other reason than troop numbers then some very serious questions need to be asked.

 

No wonder we are seeing a revanchist Putin flapping his wings and a very smug Iran sitting on the sidelines ready for, well I am not sure what, but something to be sure.

 

So is the Armed Forces of the US too small or too badly organized?

[Guest aevans]

Too small an imprudently organized in some marginal respects. (I won't say "badly" organized. because there's generally a good reason somewhere for every activity -- we just sometimes get the priorities wrong.) The bottom line is that there was perceived post-Cold War "peace dividend" to be realized by downsizing the services, which was justified by assuming away threats without any real evidence. It has of course turned out that the threats didn't go away, they just changed. Quelle surprise.

Edited August 30, 2007 by aevans

[Tommy Bennett]

I don't imagine there's any way to counter the allegations - real and/or imaginary - that we are bogged down and unable to react to other situations. It seems that many people jump on that band wagon in the media almost inviting sabre-rattling in other quarters. I guess it's just politically expedient.

[Guest JamesG123]

Very negative and "glass is half empty", much like the rest of the media...

 

Maybe the CIA and DoD ought to give serious thought to creating a true "American Legion" made up of foreign volunteers? 5 years gets you citizenship. A bit late now (not enough time to stand them up and a divided Congress would never pass the laws needed for it).

 

"Day late and a dollar short" goes the expression, kinda like how this Administration has run this whole adventure.

[Rubberneck]

Need to add the 1.2M Reserve Component of all services that has been utilized since the mid-90's as well.

 

So yes, the military is too small, specifically the Army and Marine Corps.

 

I hate the idea of an "American Legion." If Americans are unwilling to fight in wars, then perhaps we should not be involved in them. It would also help if there was a recruting campaign that actually made patriotism, challenge and fortitude it's touchstones instead of the slop that has been created since the early 90's.

[Bluelight]

Very negative and "glass is half empty", much like the rest of the media...

 

Maybe the CIA and DoD ought to give serious thought to creating a true "American Legion" made up of foreign volunteers? 5 years gets you citizenship. A bit late now (not enough time to stand them up and a divided Congress would never pass the laws needed for it).

 

"Day late and a dollar short" goes the expression, kinda like how this Administration has run this whole adventure.

 

I thought foreign volunteers could already get into the US army, with a 4-year fast track to citizenship plan included for them and there family?

 

....

 

I don't like the concept of the US government fielding any military force not made up of US citizens. Even the black water and etc company folks in Iraq make me nervous.

[Gregory]

I thought foreign volunteers could already get into the US army, with a 4-year fast track to citizenship plan included for them and there family?

 

Only if they are already permanent residents of the USA.

[kaikaun]

It's not that the US Armed Forces are too small. It's that their mission is too big.

 

For that matter, what is the mission of the US Armed Forces? Is it formally stated anywhere (like in the Constitution, or an act of Congress)? How open is its formal mission to creative interpretation?

 

The current mission handed to the US Armed Forces of securing peace in two separate countries under very harsh conditions and even harsher rules or engagement, while simultaneously fulfilling other security obligations literally around the globe and still maintaining readiness to do even more in a contingency is absolutely fucking enormous. And that's putting it politely. No human force has done or even tried to do what the US Armed Forces is trying to do today -- not even the Vietnam period was this taxing in many ways. The current mission may be too big for anyone to handle.

[WRW]

how many pen pushers in the Pentagon

[Cinaruco]

Why in the name of heaven is the USAF larger than the USMC?

 

By god, it does not make any sense.

[Sardaukar]

Why in the name of heaven is the USAF larger than the USMC?

 

By god, it does not make any sense.

 

Actually it does. USA needs to be able to "reach out and touch" if they remain a global power. AF is the fastest way to do it. "Shock & Awe"...

Edited August 31, 2007 by Sardaukar

[Rubberneck]

I've heard that there over 100,000 military personnel stationed within a 90 mile circle of the White House.

 

Do not know if this is true, but it does not strike me as being over the top either.

 

 

how many pen pushers in the Pentagon

[Ivanhoe]

Why in the name of heaven is the USAF larger than the USMC?

 

What's freaky is that, according to a quote in Aerospace America by a USAF type, the USAF consumes more fuel annually than the Army and Navy combined. Power projection and global presence at 600 kts has its costs.

 

On Rubberneck's concern about the commitment of the population, I'm reminded of The Donald's quote about how you fight wars with the Army you got, not the one you want. The size of our military appears more limited by what the Puzzle Palace and Congress want than what the taxpayers & voters want, because having a big, killer military is not a political hot topic right now. There are few single issue voters right now who will vote for whatever candidate promises an 18 division force. Part of that is due to the press being leftist and wanting a peace dividend, thus promoting military downsizing over the past 20 years. Part of that is due to the existence of a lot of "better-faster-cheaper" generals in DOD. And part of that is due to Congresscritters who want to distribute pork rather than build and maintain 11Bs. So there are more voters who will either vote for pork, or vote according to a belief that we have more than enough 11Bs. And of course, there are the voters who think that having a real military encourages adventurism and having a weak military discourages it (proving that the public school system sucks the proverbial hind tit).

 

Maybe over the next 10 years, the Internet revolution will enlighten a substantial percentage of voters that we need more ground troops. Only then will we get a sea change in DC and thus in DOD. Until then, expect management by crisis mode.

[Guest JamesG123]

So we will have another large, expensive military sitting around painting rocks again once Iraq (our part anyway) is over?

 

I think the US military was "right sized" for conducting the fabled 2 simultaneous regional defensive wars. Either coming to the defense of ally, or going in and laying waste to someone's country. What it wasn't/isn't structured for is the long-term occupation of an entire hostile country. Do we really want to go thru the expense and rigmarole of reforming our military to conduct that as its primary mission (IE: "Transformation") when it is evident that the US is not politically inclined/interested in doing so?

[Ken Estes]

So we will have another large, expensive military sitting around painting rocks again once Iraq (our part anyway) is over?

 

I think the US military was "right sized" for conducting the fabled 2 simultaneous regional defensive wars. Either coming to the defense of ally, or going in and laying waste to someone's country. What it wasn't/isn't structured for is the long-term occupation of an entire hostile country. Do we really want to go thru the expense and rigmarole of reforming our military to conduct that as its primary mission (IE: "Transformation") when it is evident that the US is not politically inclined/interested in doing so?

 

 

No, not at all [your first line]. The black hole in DOD budgets that will follow the end of the occupation of Iraq will far exceed the one following Vietnam, ironically administered in part by SecDef Rummy I. The USMC plans to ramp up 5K/yr to reach 199K in FY10, but this and similar army programming seems fatuous given the almost inevitable turndown. The problem will be in taking care of rebuilding/refurbishing the previous balanced/minimum force, plus the reserve componenet; then there is the problem of judiciously treating the RIFs and the casualties over the ensuing years. VA funding a campaign issue??

 

Your second line is just spot-on.

[Gunguy]

This is a great thread. In my opinion, the Air Force is still too big, the Navy is too big, the Naval Gator force is too big and our Army/Marine force is too small. As everyone has stated, getting Congress and the Generals to fund tropps isn't sexy enough to happen. No major post service jobs for all the GOs. No luxury trips from happy contractors when bulking up the infantry, so Congress is not interested. We clearly need a larger ground force for all of the missions we have. If we want to have a smaller ground force then we have to give up missions that we are involved in.

 

In a nutshell, we can get rid of 100% of our F-15Cs, and about 400 F-16s (oldest ones first) tomorrow, and not hurt our war making capability a bit. We spend billions on fuel for the Air force being oversized. The Navy could give up an entire Carrier group tomorrow and it would be a non-event. All of this would not lower the defense budget but would allow us to fund the ground forces we need to support our Superpower status.

 

Before we got involved in 9/11 by those morons, I mean terrorists, we had alternative Naval ship sailing plans coming on line that were very well thought out and would save a ton of money, and still have our forces trained very well. The DOD was talking about killing off one Carrier group. Rummy was going to downsize a lot. But 9/11 threw that all out the window. Anyway, we can afford a larger ground force with modern weapons, we just have to quit spending money on things we don't need. We over match any possible Naval force and Air Force in the world without even getting most of the guys out of the chow hall!

The problem we will have is that post Iraq cuts will be massive, heavy and broad brush. So, the ground forces will take a major hit too, exactly where we don't need it. Oh well....That is the nature of our government.

[Guest pfcem]

This is a great thread. In my opinion, the Air Force is still too big, the Navy is too big, the Naval Gator force is too big and our Army/Marine force is too small. As everyone has stated, getting Congress and the Generals to fund tropps isn't sexy enough to happen. No major post service jobs for all the GOs. No luxury trips from happy contractors when bulking up the infantry, so Congress is not interested. We clearly need a larger ground force for all of the missions we have. If we want to have a smaller ground force then we have to give up missions that we are involved in.

 

In a nutshell, we can get rid of 100% of our F-15Cs, and about 400 F-16s (oldest ones first) tomorrow, and not hurt our war making capability a bit. We spend billions on fuel for the Air force being oversized. The Navy could give up an entire Carrier group tomorrow and it would be a non-event. All of this would not lower the defense budget but would allow us to fund the ground forces we need to support our Superpower status.

 

Before we got involved in 9/11 by those morons, I mean terrorists, we had alternative Naval ship sailing plans coming on line that were very well thought out and would save a ton of money, and still have our forces trained very well. The DOD was talking about killing off one Carrier group. Rummy was going to downsize a lot. But 9/11 threw that all out the window. Anyway, we can afford a larger ground force with modern weapons, we just have to quit spending money on things we don't need. We over match any possible Naval force and Air Force in the world without even getting most of the guys out of the chow hall!

The problem we will have is that post Iraq cuts will be massive, heavy and broad brush. So, the ground forces will take a major hit too, exactly where we don't need it. Oh well....That is the nature of our government.

In other words you want to scrap the military & replace it with a police force.

[Kensuke]

Why in the name of heaven is the USAF larger than the USMC?

 

By god, it does not make any sense.

 

It does if you are a superpower. USAF is rapid power projection for when you want to reach out and touch someone....now. And all of their expensive toys take a fair amount of manpower to keep running. Though I suspect if they keep reducing a lot of the old SAC airframes you'll see their numbers shrink soon enough.

 

USMC doesn't want to be big, and they've had no problems getting people should that ever change. They go in and do a job. If it is a job that will take a particularly long time or a big troop commitment, you call in the Army. They've built a whole legacy around "The FEW and the Proud".

 

Also, I don't know if this is true anymore, but the USMC always used to joke that they were STILL bigger than Canada's entire armed forces.

 

- John

Edited August 31, 2007 by Kensuke

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO

[KingSargent]

I've heard that there over 100,000 military personnel stationed within a 90 mile circle of the White House.

 

Do not know if this is true, but it does not strike me as being over the top either.

Considering the number of forts/posts/bases built in that area over the centuries, I wouldn't be surprised. Add in the powerful Congressional delegations that fight any base closure and you are going to find military personnel in any given area "because they've always been there."

[Jim Martin]

Why in the name of heaven is the USAF larger than the USMC?

 

By god, it does not make any sense.

 

Because we don't need a really large Corps. The Corps might could do with another regiment or two, but that's it. The Army needs to be expanded by a couple of division equivalents, IMO.

[Jim Martin]

It does if you are a superpower. USAF is rapid power projection for when you want to reach out and touch someone....now. And all of their expensive toys take a fair amount of manpower to keep running. Though I suspect if they keep reducing a lot of the old SAC airframes you'll see their numbers shrink soon enough.

 

USMC doesn't want to be big, and they've had no problems getting people should that ever change. They go in and do a job. If it is a job that will take a particularly long time or a big troop commitment, you call in the Army. They've built a whole legacy around "The FEW and the Proud".

 

Also, I don't know if this is true anymore, but the USMC always used to joke that they were STILL bigger than Canada's entire armed forces.

 

- John

 

I don't recall the exact quote, but there's a story of FDR hearing about the Marines taking some island or other; a senator said something to the effect of expanding the Marine Corps by another couple of divisions, and Roosevelt replied that he doubted the country could find enough men suited to be Marines in order to effect such an expansion.

[Gunguy]

In other words you want to scrap the military & replace it with a police force.

 

You sure misread the post.

[Guest pfcem]

You sure misread the post.

No, I just used the wrong smilie.

 

I was TRYING to demonstrate just how absurd your post was by posting one even more absurd.

[Cinaruco]

Actually it does. USA needs to be able to "reach out and touch" if they remain a global power. AF is the fastest way to do it. "Shock & Awe"...

 

Well, that would mean that the US was facing hordes of enemy a/c, and the only threat in the world like that today in our good friends the Chinese, which IMHO would not risk it.