Relief

These sort of concerns about National Guard units being too tied up in foreign deployments to do state-oriented disaster relief and so forth constitute the best rationale I can think of for the belief that the Army needs to get bigger. One could use a larger regular Army in order to curtail the need to call on Guard units and thereby increase domestic disaster preparedness. On balance, though, that would have to be an incredibly cost-ineffective means of addressing natural disasters, so I don't see the argument carrying the day on the merits.

Has John Edwards specifically come out against the larger military? Obama and Clinton are for it, and Kerry/Edwards endorsed a version of this idea back in 2004.

Comments

"Has John Edwards specifically come out against the larger military?"

While I'm not 100% sure, I think I remember reading something after Obama released his extra 100,000 soldiers plan that Edwards said he didn't agree. But, again, I'm not sure about the memory.

-----

"One could use a larger regular Army in order to curtail the need to call on Guard units and thereby increase domestic disaster preparedness."

IIRC, vwcat tried to justify Obama's plan with the rationale that we needed an extra 100,000 soldiers to deal with tsunamis, since our current 1,400,000 strong military is obviously inadequate for the tsunami beat.

Posted by Petey | May 8, 2007 12:47 PM

I don't understand- we need a larger army so we don't need to call up the National Guard to fight our next poorly concieved and advised war of choice?

Posted by Dan | May 8, 2007 1:02 PM

Whenever someone suggests increasing the size of the military they usually fail to explain exactly how they are going to make it happen. Recruiters are already having the damndest time maintaining current troop levels. Increasing the number of troops would seem to require one of the following:

1) increasing the pay of all soldiers to induce a greater number of applicants

2) lowering qualifications yet again

3) increased reliance on foreign-born soldiers

4) draft

I may well be missing other options but it should be clear that simply asking for soldiers will not necessarily produce the necessary bodies.

Posted by Buffalo Joe | May 8, 2007 1:07 PM

I have an idea, instead of expanding the military, let's not get bogged down in foreign occupations with open ended military commitment at high force levels. Then we'll have plenty of National Guard troops around to help out.

Posted by IMU | May 8, 2007 1:14 PM

Other than our debacle in Iraq, what would cause us to need a larger army?

And if it's the only reason, then let's just get the hell out.

Posted by RT | May 8, 2007 1:19 PM

I may well be missing other options but it should be clear that simply asking for soldiers will not necessarily produce the necessary bodies.

How many mercenaries are now working for us in some role? Or "private contractors" or whatever the Orwellian term is. Of those, how many would be eligible for military service but choose not to because the pay is too low or they don't want the open-ended commitment or whatever? If Congress voted for a policy that the U.S. government would not employ anyone in a combat role unless they are enlisted members of the armed forces and part of the regular chain of command — insert as much legalese as you need to make that work — how many of those mercenaries would get jobs as security guards or consultants or something, and how many would enlist?

That wouldn't make up the 100,000 target all by itself, no, not unless the problem is even bigger than I think, but it probably would make a noticeable dent. And I happen to think that regardless of what the size of the army should be, diminishing the number of quasi-independent mercenaries working for the government would be a good thing on its own.

Posted by Cyrus | May 8, 2007 1:31 PM

How big does the US military need to be if we remove from it's mission the indefinite occupation of other countries?

And I don't mean this to be snarky.

We need to seriously reevaluate to rule of our military in the 21st century. Tanks and air to air combat fighters need other tank armies and air forces to fight and they really don't much exist anymore. Certainly, not like during the cold war. It wasn't tanks, but air to ground attacks that wiped out Saddam's retreating army 91.

I don't see how we answer the question of Army size until we are clear on Army mission.

Posted by Don | May 8, 2007 1:36 PM

Other than our debacle in Iraq, what would cause us to need a larger army?

And if it's the only reason, then let's just get the hell out.

I think the point is that Iraq has demonstrated how quickly our military gets into manpower issues when faced with a significant overseas conflict of any length.

Iraq is a debacle and we should get out. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't learn lessons from our mistake so that in the event we do need to fight a significant war overseas again (for legitimate reasons this time) we can do it without horribly overextending our military.

In any case, I think the focus in selecting a new president should be on finding the one that is least likely to get us involved in another ill-conceived conflict. I for one am willing to leave decisions that concern the readiness of our military to whoever meets that bill.

Posted by Brian | May 8, 2007 1:37 PM

How big does the US military need to be if we remove from it's mission the indefinite occupation of other countries?

That is a good question. Tough to answer without a much broader analysis of how we plan to use our military in the future. The Iraq War does provide a useful data point though.

Clearly our military is too small to control a country like Iraq for a period of four to five years. While I don't think there is any likely legitimate reason we should be seeking to militarily control countries in the future for a period of five years, I also don't think it is in the interests of the United States to have a military that is incapable of doing so.

Posted by Brian | May 8, 2007 1:43 PM

These sort of concerns

Of course, that's mostly bullsh*t, since the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, and more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment on hand. As the article points out, Kansas has more than 400,000 Guardsmen available to it. So while I agree that the military should get larger, the reasoning in the post is flat wrong.

Posted by Al | May 8, 2007 1:44 PM

Clearly our military is too small to control a country like Iraq for a period of four to five years. While I don't think there is any likely legitimate reason we should be seeking to militarily control countries in the future for a period of five years, I also don't think it is in the interests of the United States to have a military that is incapable of doing so.

Well, then 100,000 more won´t be enough. Remember Shinseki? Several 100,000s needed for the occupation?

If you use the one third rule (one third deployed, one third resting, one third training for deployment), you´d probably need to double or triple the size of the active army. Depending of course on how many reservists or National Guard units you want to deploy. Probably not that many if you talk about a five year period.
And you´ll need reorganizing too. I seem to remember reading that a lot of MP and supply units were National Guard?

Posted by Detlef | May 8, 2007 2:19 PM

If you use the one third rule (one third deployed, one third resting, one third training for deployment), you´d probably need to double or triple the size of the active army. Depending of course on how many reservists or National Guard units you want to deploy. Probably not that many if you talk about a five year period.
And you´ll need reorganizing too. I seem to remember reading that a lot of MP and supply units were National Guard?

I don't know that General Shinseki is the be all and end all of analyzing the necessary number of troops. But if that is what it takes I think we should do what we can to get our military there.

Posted by Brian | May 8, 2007 2:46 PM

"Of course, that's mostly bullsh*t, since the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, and more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment on hand."

On the other hand, I just heard the governor of Kansas on NPR saying specifically that she felt the response to the tornado was inadequate due to gear and personnel being in Iraq.

Assuming that the governor (a Democrat) is biased against the war, and also further assuming the Army's press release (Al's source) is equally biased in the other direction, it seems fair to average the two reports out and conclude that the Kansas National Guard is exactly the right size for dealing with this crisis.

Posted by James Gary | May 8, 2007 3:07 PM

I think the point is that Iraq has demonstrated how quickly our military gets into manpower issues when faced with a significant overseas conflict of any length.

Only if it's a ground war against either (a) an insurgency, or (b) a major power such as China or Russia.

We pretty much dominate the seas and the air, so ground is the only problem. And even there, we can easily defeat the armies of pretty much any nation other than China, Russia, and perhaps India.

But where would we fight any of these countries? Only on their soil, in all likelihood. Which we'd be incredibly stupid to do. So that leaves insurgencies, which means occupations.

So why would we want to repeat the occupation experience? We don't. If there's nobody to hand power off to quickly, and we can't easily win their hearts and minds just by being there, then we don't want to be there.

Posted by RT | May 8, 2007 4:32 PM

Brian says

While I don't think there is any likely legitimate reason we should be seeking to militarily control countries in the future for a period of five years, I also don't think it is in the interests of the United States to have a military that is incapable of doing so.

Why does this need to be a capability, especially when even you don't see a reason for it? All capabilities come at a cost in dollars and this particular capability would be greatly expensive.

Doesn't this really reinforce the need for a greater role by the international community? I can't think of a reason why the US alone needs this ability. It seems to me that any legitimate post war occupation -- now unforeseen by both of us -- will legitimately be an international problem and thus an international occupation force. Otherwise, what's the point of NATO?

Having the punch to defeat any opposing army is another matter.

Posted by Don | May 8, 2007 5:38 PM

I read something very interesting about the what the fututre army should be composed of. it went against all tradition.

It suggested that the army be trained for peace-keeping, reconstruction and prolonged deployment, and that Army reserve units be trained for engaging enemy forces in combat (though led by a core of regular army). This is exactly the opposite of the present situation. The justification for this was that combat was the easy part of the job, and is likely to be the easiest thing the army does for years to come. Occupation, on the other hand, is miserably difficult and requires dedicated training.

This would allow a large fighting force that does not severely impact the lives of reservists (other than those killed or wounded) as their deployments would be brief. The long, bitter deployments would be for those who chose the life.

I think this is logical, but politically impractical. I wish I could find it.

Posted by Njorl | May 8, 2007 5:39 PM

Brian:

"I don't know that General Shinseki is the be all and end all of analyzing the necessary number of troops."

Good point. No one mentions it now, but Shinseki gave the same "several hundred thousand troops" requirement for Afghanistan too.

Shinseki was basically a modern McClellan. The current chaos in Iraq is less a result of too-few troops than it is a result of deposing Saddam too quickly. Had the military subdued the Sunni triangle before attacking Baghdad, much of the Sunni insurgency would have been aborted before it started. Granted, this was part of the initial plan of having the 4th Infantry Division invade from the north (nixed by the Turkish parliament), but the same result could have been achieved (albeit, more slowly) by coming from the South and bypassing Baghdad initially.

That strategy would have had the added benefit of having most of the chaos happen while Saddam was nominally in control of Iraq.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2007 5:49 PM

This has become one of my litmus tests. I won't vote for any candidate that says s/he wants to increase the size of the military. Take the troops out of S. Korea, take them out of Germany, take them out of just about everywhere they aren't needed. Also, don't fight in any wars that aren't absolutely necessary to fight (and for those wars a draft would, by definition, be understandable if required).

I think that most of the candidates support increasing the size of the military in an attempt to look tough. The current size is not necessary if we had a non-imperial foreign policy, and the military budget has became so much pork and corporate welfare for Lockheed Martin and Boeing, etc. that even the Congresscritters try--and often fail--to nix expensive projects. The way this country funds its military and the way it views the role of the US military in the world are completely out of whack, and unfortunately Iraq has done nothing to humble its leaders or citizens on either of those fronts.

Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, and it's only gotten progressively worse. I sincerely hope that progressives and liberals who do not think the military needs to be expanded are not supporting such a policy because of political expediency.

Posted by Mitch Schindler | May 8, 2007 11:48 PM

Mitch:

"The military budget has became so much pork and corporate welfare for Lockheed Martin and Boeing, etc."

I agree with you about not increasing the manpower of the military, but buying advanced weapons is not corporate welfare -- it's the only way to maintain our military supremacy, which is what deters other countries from launching aggressive wars against us, or our allies. You can always conscript former soldiers in a national emergency, but you can't build a cutting air-superiority fighter overnight. Any money that deters future enemies and prevents large scale wars -- or makes it more possible for us to win one of these wars -- is money well invested.

Posted by Fred | May 9, 2007 11:06 AM