ArchPundit

5 Responses to “ Time to Increase the Size of the Military ”

1. # 1 vwcat Says:
   December 19th, 2006 at

   I think Shrubboy is planning on putting it one the credit card. However, I don’t think the Joint Chiefs are going to let shrubboy play.

2. # 2 Greg Says:
   December 19th, 2006 at

   There is actually a real delicate dance going on between the Army and the civilian leadership. The equipment shortages were their during the Clinton years. Some of it from the Bush draw down and some for Clinton’s accelerated drawdown. For a better part of 12 years the Army has been taking it on the chin.

   Front line units during this period were given the latest equipment while secondary units — often on the same base — were given second hand equipment. As I recall there were some really print features at the time. Meanwhile, the Air Force was getting funding to upgrade the Guard and Reserve with F-16C A/C and new versions of C-130s. The F-22 was in development and C-17s were being purchased.

   A lot of those decisions are coming home to roost, now. The Pentagon Army guys are probably leveraging Iraq to grab as much as possible in the Pentagon budget competition — and having been there, believe me, it’s a competition. The Navy and Marines always pretty much get what they want (they get a lot more political support from retirees). War opponents will try leverage this as mismanagement, but a lot these problems have been with us for a long time.

   And in Pentagon terms, $17 billion isn’t that big of number for equipment replacement.

   And by the way, the decade or more we’ve been the Balkans isn’t helping the cause either. (And I was an ardent supporter of that and still am). But alas, Iraq is the only context that matters politically. But in reality there is a lot more going on. It will be interesting to see how this works its way out.

3. # 3 NW burbs Says:
   December 20th, 2006 at

   I tried posting this last night but ran into gremlins, so apologies in advance if it ends up as a duplicate.

   Somebody call the ghost of Chairman Mao and ask if he’s still accepting President Bush’s AmEx (paid for on the backs of our American children)!

   And considering the Pentagon’s own Iraq war game scenarios in the late 90s, historically respected security force calculations (though clearly these calculations were rejected by Rummy), and past experience by other stabilization forces showed we’d need at least 400,000-500,000 troops in-country to secure and control a post-Saddam Iraq… the Republicans’ 20k-50k ain’t gonna cut it. We’d need to more than double our forces on the ground, not add a handful of brigades. But the only way to do that is to “e n s l a v e” (as the conservatives put it) America’s youth with a draft.

   We had a half-million troops in Vietnam. Why aren’t conservatives calling for a “surge” to that amount? (Maybe because Vietnam didn’t work out so well either, not that defending America against dolphins and sea gulls would’ve taught our CiC that lesson — but at least one Nam vet learned it…)

   Conservatives are failures. Failures at war. Failures at economics. And, clearly, failures at math (whether fuzzy or not).

4. # 4 Greg Says:
   December 20th, 2006 at

   A single Vietnam era F-4 Phantom II could carry the equivalent of an entire squadron of WWII era B-17′s. I’ve read of Marine Corporals having the ability to call in airstrikes by far superior F-18s, today. Where it took 100 soldiers to do something four decades ago, it might only take a fraction to do that today. Today’s soldier is far more capable, better educated and better trained than anytime in history. Even comparing today’s capabilities to the first Gulf War’s force – of which I was a member – is apples and oranges. I have very little in common with airman in today’s force and I’ve only been out for 12 years.

   Also, the additional forces being bandied about are for Baghdad, not Iraq. Comparing force structure demands for stabilizing Vietnam or Iraq (an entire country) to a city doesn’t make much sense.

   And you are calling other people failures.

5. # 5 NW burbs Says:
   December 23rd, 2006 at

   Greg, you always have an excuse for everything, eh?

   I thought conservatives kept complaining the military was underfunded and equipment innovations had been lagging. Now you’re saying the opposite to justify purely partisan motives.

   PS: There’s more to Iraq than just Baghdad. If the conservatives’ goal is simply to secure Baghdad… those they are fighting will simply be squeezed like jello out around the countryside. That is the definition of a failed strategy.