Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bosh

How?
We're having serious recruiting problems maintaining the army we already have.

All of the things that you offer as solutions to the problems in Iraq (this, the UN getting Iran and Syria to do what we want, etc.) don't seem very likely...

MTG would have the details, but our Army was once a lot larger than it is now, all volunteer.

BTW, the Army is exceeding its recruitment goals. At least that's what I heard on the news today.

[Bosh]

MTG would have the details, but our Army was once a lot larger than it is now, all volunteer.

Right we've had large peacetime volunteer armies, but EVERY SINGLE TIME the US has needed to build up a large wartime army its had to resort to the draft.

BTW, the Army is exceeding its recruitment goals. At least that's what I heard on the news today.

Two reasons for this:
1. They droppped the recruiting goals to make sure that they'd exceed them. Standard shell game.
2. Massive drop in standards for entrants.

In any case how long would it take to add a few more divisions even if we could find fit volunteers?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Straybow
The end of Saddam would've looked like this no matter how or when it happened. The difference is that this way gives them a credible option for a peaceful restructuring, instead of fighting to the last man.

That's a new one. 'It was inevitable!'

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Bosh

Right we've had large peacetime volunteer armies, but EVERY SINGLE TIME the US has needed to build up a large wartime army its had to resort to the draft.


Two reasons for this:
1. They droppped the recruiting goals to make sure that they'd exceed them. Standard shell game.
2. Massive drop in standards for entrants.

In any case how long would it take to add a few more divisions even if we could find fit volunteers?

The draft is tits on a bull right now. Drafts work for meatgrinder wars where individual training and unit cohesion are less important than maintaining an adequate number of line doggies. The technology level, and needed level of unit cohesion for combat effectiveness, combined with training pipelines make the draft more harm than good in the modern Army.


Without significantly sacrificing combat effectiveness of existing divisions in peacetime, and assuming you want the new division to be at the same level of combat effectiveness of the average of similar division types, figure four years per division, with some acceleration if you already have a larger army.

The biggest issue is avoiding major dilution of experienced company and field grade officers (particularly O3 to O5 grades) and senior/staff NCOs (E6 to E9). You can't just create battalion S2s, platoon and top sergeants, etc. An additional chokepoint, once you get individuals past AIT, is unit training at various levels and training environments. Specialty divisions (airborne, air assault and mountain) would take even longer.

You can't raise a division from scratch - you have to transfer troops from other divisions and replace those transfers as well as build out your new division, and those changes also take time to absorb so you don't degrade combat effectiveness. That's the biggest limiting factor in expanding specialty divisions - you have a smaller cadre of qualified troops to draw from, so a much higher proportion of new troops requiring training.

It also takes a long time to spin up training capacity without sacrificing training effectiveness. There are throughput constraints on a lot of specialty training - Ranger school, jump school, MOUT training, NTC, medic's C4 courses, communications, intel, sniper, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


MTG would have the details, but our Army was once a lot larger than it is now, all volunteer.

In the late 80's, it was 18 active divisions, then 16 at the time of the gulf war, 14 in 1993, and 10 now. National guard/reserve divisions are down from 10 to 8 in the same time frame.

The original gulf war involved 10 US divisions, plus an attached armor brigade to augment the Marines, and two Armored Cavalry Regiments (combined, about the combat strength of a division, but lighter tail). 8 divisions plus 3 line brigades of Army, and 2 divisions plus (IIRC - I don't pay as much attention to Uncle Sam's Misguided Children) a couple of extra Marine regiments.

[Ned]

Top Commanders Appear Set to Urge Larger U.S. Military
By THOM SHANKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 — The review of Iraq policy by senior commanders appears to be headed toward a recommendation to increase the size of the American military, both to sustain a long-term commitment in Iraq and to leave the United States better positioned to deal with potential adversaries, in particular Iran and North Korea, Pentagon and military officials said Thursday.

The latest indication came when the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, called for expanding the force by adding more active-duty troops and by making more use of the National Guard and Reserve.

His statement, on Thursday, came a day after President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon’s secure conference room to discuss reshaping strategy in Iraq. That session, officials said, included a detailed discussion of whether the armed services are large enough to sustain the mission in Iraq and meet other global security threats.

Officials who took part in the session or who were briefed on it would not give specific figures that were being discussed for growth goals. But their descriptions revealed a broad conclusion that has received increasing support in Washington: that regardless of the exact shape of President Bush’s new strategy on Iraq, the Army and Marine Corps are stretched thin by their commitments around the globe, in particular in Iraq.

That conclusion is being punctuated by the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who officially leaves his post on Friday and who was long the champion of the idea that high technology and better intelligence could substitute for a bigger military.

Although expanding the Army’s size would be too slow a process to provide immediate relief for the force in Iraq, several ideas are being considered to fill the short-term demand for troops there, especially in Baghdad.

One proposal being studied, according to Pentagon officials, is accelerating the arrival in Iraq of a handful of combat brigades already scheduled to deploy there in 2007. Sending troops in early or keeping soldiers in Iraq past their scheduled departure has been a way to temporarily increase American troop presence in Iraq without ordering in forces that had not been on the deployment roster.

A new study by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group in Washington, that was released on Thursday also called for a surge of forces to Baghdad over the near term on the grounds that the nascent Iraqi security force is not up to the task.

The report was written by the military historian Frederick W. Kagan and by Jack Keane, the retired general who served as vice chief of staff of the Army. It calls for adding four to five additional combat brigades to Baghdad and deploying them in neighborhoods that have mixed Sunni and Shiite populations and have been the scene of sectarian violence.

The report argues that this can be done without stretching the Army and Marines to the breaking point, but it also advocates increasing both forces by a total of at least 30,000 per year for the next two years.

At the Pentagon, even those not supporting the surge option argue that the Army needs to grow to sustain the force levels required in Afghanistan and Iraq and to meet other national security threats.

Officials who were briefed on the president’s discussion with the Joint Chiefs said there was a consensus that the review of administration strategy in Iraq must be broadened to include decisions on how to prepare the American military for the global counterterrorism mission beyond Iraq.

In particular, they said there was a need to show enough force strength to deter potential adversaries from aggressive moves based on an assumption that American power was bogged down in Iraq.

“A lot of it was discussed yesterday with President Bush,” said a senior Pentagon official who was briefed on the discussions by one of those in attendance.

The nation faces three choices or “we will break the active component,” General Schoomaker said in an appearance before the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. He said the choices included reducing demand on the military, which seems unlikely; gaining the guaranteed ability to mobilize the National Guard and Reserve; and increasing the size of the active forces.

On the last point, said that “current demand on the force makes this a wise and prudent action.” He gave no figure on his goal for the Army, but noted that even in an optimistic best case, the Army probably could grow by only 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers per year.

Congress authorized a 30,000-soldier increase in the active-duty Army after the Sept. 11 attacks in what was described as a temporary measure. Army officials say they hope to reach that authorized total troop strength of 512,000 by next year.

Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, the former Army chief of staff who now heads the Association of the U.S. Army, a private support group, said in an interview that senior Army officers have told him in recent months that the service needs an active duty strength of some 535,000 to 540,000. General Sullivan said that figure assumed assured access to mobilize the National Guard and Reserves.

General Sullivan said his personal view was that the Army needed to have an active duty strength of more than 600,000 if such ability to mobilize the Guard and Reserves could not be guaranteed.

He noted that there has been a debate over the past few years as to whether the Army deployments were a “spike” or a “plateau.”

“Surely, we know by now that it is a plateau,” he said. “We are sending people back with 12 months dwell time. One reason we are doing it is that we don’t have enough to spread this commitment out.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/world/middleeast/15military.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

[Seeker]

Maybe it's time for the US Army to create a 'tier two' army.

The Regulars can be the normal highly trained fighters we all know and love....

but then supplement them with a big mass of 'Guys with Rifles' Irregular soldiers (like the national guard, reserves, etc) whose job is just to patrol and stand around looking intimidating. If tshtf, then they take off and call in the Professionals. Meanwhile they can take a lot of load off some of the less combat intensive stuff.

[KrazyHorse]

They already have that. It's called the National Guard.

God forbid we find out what tier 3 would look like.

[Seeker]

What would Tier 3 look like do you think??

[KrazyHorse]

Hah. Edited that in before you could answer

[Ned]

Well, KH, if the Canadians are so good, as you say, perhaps we could expand by adding Canadian divisions to our active roster.

[Ned]

Maybe we ought to allow citizens or subjects of our NATO allies to join our armed forces and have that service credited against any service obligation they might have at home.

[KrazyHorse]

a) Go ask the US regulars what they think of the NG's combat effectiveness...

b) We have no interest in joining your ill-fated Iraq adventure.

"I told you so. I told you so. 'There have been signs in the heavens' I said, 'to warn us from this place', I said"

[Zkribbler]

KH's (b) reminds me of Bush's high point in his debates with Kerry.

Kerry called the Iraqi War a "Grand Diversion" and said his plan was to bring in our allies to help fight. Bush rhetorically asked how Kerry could convince our allies to join us in a "Grand Diversion."

KH's point is that the Canadians won't be riding to our rescue.

[Ned]

Maybe not KH, but there must be some Canucks who actually want to do something positive in their lives and actually fight for the betterment of mankind rather than just sit back an criticize America for being the foolish policeman of the world.