Redstate

What do you want to bet some Democrats and RMSPers are going to double count the troops we've been paying for in the supplementals when they're added permanently, for the purposes of calculating future tax increases "fiscal conservatism?"
--
Run like Reagan!

This debate about adding to the military, and these reports that we're "stretched perilously thin" perplex and enrage me. Maybe someone out there who understands our military better than me can help explain matters.

We spend $400 billion dollars a year on our military -- a gargantuan sum by any measure. And we have a standing army that numbers....what... 600,000 Army and 200,000 Marines, plus Navy and Air Force who don't count for much in Iraq. But with all that money and all those troops, we can't send another 25,000 or so without calling up reserves, or messing around with rotations, or "enlarging" the military, or bringling back conscription? Where are our hundreds of thousands of additional troops? Are they guarding Germany still, or Japan, or upstate NY, or what? Or, have we got this great big lie of a military where only ten percent of them really know any lethal skills, and the remainder are really only suited for desk jobs? Is this that oft-quoted "tail to tooth" ratio, so that ten "military" support one fighting man? And would that then mean that of 120,000 troops in Iraq only 10-20,000 are really killers and the rest are desk jockeys? Is that our problem there?

And what of the "two wars" doctrines that we've been sold for all these years as we've footed the bill for all this? We can't apparently handle two battles inside Baghdad simultaneously, much less two wars.

Am I wrong here, or has our military gone terribly bad? And I'm not criticizing the fighting men, just the "leaders" in Crystal City and the Pentagon.

It seems to me that far more important than the number of people we have in uniform is a more wholesale rethinking of our military strategies and tactics, rules of engagement, weaponry and systems, etc.

Our military is designed to fight and overwhelmingly defeat the sort of threat that is becoming increasingly rare in today's world -- largely because our military is so adept at dispensing that sort of threat.

While I certainly can't say that conventional armies are obsolete among potential foes (see: China, NoKo, Russia), it does seem probable that most of the fighting we'll be doing in the coming decades will be counterinsurgency-type assymetrical engagement.

And, let's face it, we're not really that good at it yet. To his unending credit, I think Donald Rumsfeld courageously (ie, a lot of equity in the status quo) began the process of redesigning our military. But it seems we have a ways to go....and I'll have to be convinced that doing so will necessarily require larger numbers.

...but where are these extra 70,000 troops going to come from? It's not like we have been turning prospective troops away from service. Perhaps we should have an American Foreign Legion. Anyone pledging loyalty(and passes background checks, etc) can serve in their own branch and at the end of tour, they and their immediate family(spouse/kids) becomes citizens. I suppose if they are KIA their surviving family will still gain citizenship. This might kill two birds with one stone.

But like the Libertarian Hawk said, it's really more of a matter than tactics than raw numbers. There have been a number of missteps made, and the administration needs to be more careful not to repeat them.

First, we can't have enough Arabic translators. There have been a dozen or 3 translators discharged simply because they were gay. Each of them should be contacted, and given the opportunity to serve again, and if the generals complain, put them in a non-military group(CIA/NSA/etc).

Second, we should talk to Ian and Syria. No, talking with your enemies doesn't make you weak, but if the violence can be reduced, even by a little, than it can save American lives. And we don't need to be singing campfire songs either. It can be as simply as getting both sides to stop supplying the insurgents and death squads.

Third, the insurgents are Iraqis. If we want to stay in the country for the longterm, we need to try to work with the community to help ostracize the insurgents from the general populace. That also means cracking down on idiots like this who only serve to drive a wedge between the US forces the Iraqis.

Forth, I was reading today that we are starting to have equipment issues. Desert regions cause havoc with equipment breaking down rapidly. We should consider licensing some Israeli equipment like the Tavor TAR-21 rifle, whose shorter barrel length would be a benefit in close-urban fighting.

Hm, that's all for this rambling.

an increase in our combat infantry and artillery forces should be very doable. I believe we have raised the upper age limit to 42 or something similar -- this reflects the fact that people are more physically fit at that age than in the past.

Another change that should be made, and that I think would have wide support, would be to change the terms of the GI Bill through which veterans attend college. After WWII, the Bill paid for all tuition, no matter what institution the veteran attended, as well as expenses, books, etc and a stipend for living expenses. As I undertand it, the current GI Bill provides a fixed amount per month (I believe it's $800) so if the veteran does not have access to other funds, an expensive school or graduate or professional study is out of reach. This should be changed, and I think this would make a big difference. I believe there is a bill in Congress that would make these changes, and the much-despised Jim Webb ran on this as one of his issues in the VA Senate race. Restoring the terms of the original GI Bill would help recruiting and seems only fair to the sacrifices being made by our soldiers.

Will it be necessary? Under what circumstances could you support it?

I am prejudiced in favor of a draft.
My son served 14 months in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I DO NOT want to force the completely unwilling to fight for our country. We all know that their "service" would be useless.
But I do believe that we should strongly consider a draft to expand our forces, IF DEEMED NECESSARY by our military generals.

Streiff, I believe my comments are pertinent to this topic.

Streiff, you have my apology.
Like you, I want our country to have a strong military.
"Adding more recruiters" and "to raise the pay" are two ideas I could also embrace.
Whatever it takes, Let's Give It!