posted December 15, 2006 01:24 PM              

U.S Army's Top General Warns Force 'Will Break'
Calls for Lifting Pentagon Restrictions on Involuntary Call-Ups.
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, AP

WASHINGTON (Dec. 15) - The Army's top general warned on Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves. He issued the warning as President Bush considers new strategies for Iraq.

Watch Video:
news video Anniversary of Saddam Capture | Military Stretched Too Thin?

More Coverage: Bush Says He 'Wont Be Rushed' on Iraq

From the Blog: McCain Calls for More Troops

Talk About It: Post Thoughts

As part of the effort to relieve the strain on the force, the Army is developing plans to accelerate the creation of two new combat brigades, The Associated Press has learned.

According to defense officials, the plan may require shifting equipment and personnel from other military units so the two new brigades could be formed next year and be ready to be sent the war zone in 2008. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.

Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to increase his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already authorized in recent years.

Though he didn't give an exact number, he said it would take significant time, saying 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers could be added per year. Schoomaker has said it costs roughly $1.2 billion to increase the Army by 10,000 soldiers.

Officials also need greater authority to tap into the National Guard and Reserve, long ago set up as a strategic reserve but now needed as an integral part of the nation's deployed forces, Schoomaker told a commission studying possible changes in those two forces.

"Over the last five years, the sustained strategic demand ... is placing a strain on the Army's all-volunteer force," Schoomaker told the commission in a Capitol Hill hearing. He added, "At this pace ... we will break the active component" unless reserves can be called up more to help.

Accelerating the creation of two combat brigades would give the Army greater flexibility to allow units to return home for at least a year before having to go back to the battlefront. Brigades average 3,500 troops.

Since 2003, the Army has been restructuring in order to increase the number of brigades in each combat division from three to four. The purpose is to increase the pool of brigades available for troop rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan and to make each brigade more self-sustaining.

White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to characterize Bush's response to Schoomaker's comments, but he said Bush "takes seriously any of the requests from the service branch chiefs."

Schoomaker's testimony and the new Army plans came as Bush continues his assessment of the Iraq war. Bush held three days of urgent meetings with top generals and other advisers. Federal agencies have presented their options to Bush and the White House National Security Council and are providing additional details and answering questions.

The military options being considered include a short-term surge in troops to stem the violence and an increased effort to train and equip Iraqi forces.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Schoomaker acknowledged that Gen. George Casey, the top commander in Iraq, is looking at several military options, including shifting many troops from combat missions to training Iraqi units.

The Army in recent days has been looking at how many additional troops could be sent to Iraq if the president decides a surge in forces would be helpful. But, Army officials say, only about 10,000 to 15,000 troops could be sent and an end to the war would have to be in sight because it would drain the pool of available soldiers for combat.

"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker told reporters. "And that purpose should be measurable."

Most Popular Stories

* · Georgia School Board Says 'Harry Potter' Can Stay
* · Miss USA's 'Personal Issues' Scrutinized
* · Reports Say Duke Rape Accuser Is Pregnant
* · Man Runs Over Deer With Seven Legs
* · Army's Top General Warns Force 'Will Break'

A number of administration officials have suggested privately that - while Bush has considered the possibility of a short-term troop increase - there is no consensus from the military on the wisdom of injecting a large number of additional troops.

Another option under discussion is increasing the number of U.S. troops who are placed inside Iraqi army and police units as advisers, boosting the training of the Iraqi forces so they can more quickly take control of their own security.

Military leaders also want adjustments in troop levels to be accompanied by political and economic improvements that could reconcile rival sectarian factions and put young people to work.

Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, meanwhile, urged the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. At a news conference in Washington, al-Hashemi, a Sunni leader who met with Bush this week, said the timetable should be "flexible" and depend on development of a capable Iraqi security force.

"You've done your job," he said at the United States Institute of Peace, a U.S.-financed think tank. Currently, however, he said, "there is across-the-board chaos in my country," with roaming bands of murderers.

12/15/06 10:10 EST

posted December 15, 2006 05:57 PM              

According to Rice, the Bush administration "was able to reduce defense spending somewhat at the end of the Cold War," but the Clinton administration "witlessly accelerated and deepened these cuts." Actually, in the Bush administration's four years, defense spending fell by 18 percent -- more than 4 percent each year. In the Clinton administration's seven years, defense spending has fallen by slightly less than 10 percent, which is slightly more than 1 percent each year. Moreover, Rice conveniently ignores the six-year plan Bush presented to Congress in January 1993, which projected a continuing decline in defense spending through 1999. Clinton's actual defense budgets were $2 billion more than the final Bush defense plan for 1994-99, as Daniel Goure and Jeffrey Ranney explain in their new book, Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium.

Rice then details the "devastating results" of Clinton's large cuts on the U.S. military. According to her, readiness has declined, training has suffered, pay has slipped 15 percent below civilian equivalents, the services are forced to cannibalize existing equipment, and the military has much difficulty recruiting and retaining people. Leaving aside whether these (at best, misleading) statements are true and resulted from Clinton's reductions, these conditions are not related to the amount of money spent on defense. The nonpay portion of the operations and maintenance account in the defense budget, which funds training, readiness, and maintenance, is 13 percent higher now than when Bush left office. Moreover, if the spending on operations and maintenance is calculated on a per capita basis, it is nearly 40 percent higher today than in 1993.

Rice also accuses the Clinton administration of cutting defense spending to its lowest point as a percentage of GDP since Pearl Harbor. Using shares of GDP as a measure of military capability is both meaningless and misleading. If Clinton had not presided over such an extraordinary period of economic growth, his current defense budget might account for four, instead of three, percent of GDP. Should he be castigated for helping the economy grow? By Rice's GDP standard, Jimmy Carter was better for defense than George Bush.

Most troubling is Rice's suggestion that the U.S. armed forces in 2000 resemble what they were in 1940. But 60 years ago, our military ranked 16th in the world (between Portugal and Romania), was one-tenth the size of Germany's military, and had only 1.6 percent of the world's military personnel. The best way to measure the adequacy of defense spending is to compare it with that of other nations. During the Clinton administration, the U.S. share of worldwide military spending has increased. America now outspends all of its adversaries or potential adversaries combined. Together with its allies, it accounts for nearly 80 percent of the world's military expenditures.

Zoellick is also off base in his critique of the Clinton administration. He writes that it has cut the military by around 40 percent. But it was the Bush administration that reduced the active forces by 444,000, or 21 percent, in four years, unlike Clinton, who cut it only 16 percent over seven years.

Reading Rice's and Zoellick's critiques of Clinton's defense budget reminds one of the early days of the Reagan administration, when several of the president's lieutenants complained about the 1970s as the "decade of neglect of defense spending." They should be reminded that in the first seven years of that decade, the Republicans were in charge and that during President Carter's tenure, defense spending actually increased.

Unfortunately, Rice's and Zoellick's "facts" found their way into presidential candidate George W. Bush's September 1999 speech on defense policy. If the governor becomes the chief executive, one hopes he will discover that the defense funding gap during the 2000 election is like the missile gap during the 1960 election. He should also read George Wilson's new book, which cites former Air Force Chief of Staff Ron Fogelman and former Army Deputy Chief of Staff Jay Gardner as stating that an annual defense budget of $250 billion, plus inflation, should be plenty for the armed services in the post-Cold War period if spent properly. (The budget is now $280 billion.) Finally, Bush should remember that during the Cold War, not a single Republican president, except Ronald Reagan, allowed defense spending to increase.

Lawrence Korb is Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and was Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration.

foreignaffairs

posted December 15, 2006 06:08 PM            

Unfortunately, Commander Corruption cut military forces and military equipment, not at all the same thing.

posted December 15, 2006 07:10 PM              

quote:

---

it was the Bush administration that reduced the active forces by 444,000, or 21 percent, in four years, unlike Clinton, who cut it only 16 percent over seven years.

---

posted December 16, 2006 01:07 AM            

September 15, 2000
The Facts About Military Readiness
by Jack Spencer
Executive Summary #1394

"The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often.

Because the security of the United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness:

posted December 16, 2006 01:15 AM              

quote:

---

Lawrence Korb is Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and was Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration.

---

posted December 16, 2006 11:19 AM            

With Gurella Warfare, there are only two options:

Option 1) Inload it all:

Go all out gung-ho and destroy every last structure and region under the influence of the insurgents. That means an all out Airstike followed by artillery support and ground assult.

Pros:

It will get the Job done; No doubt about it. Since most important cells are located amoung these heavy insurgent influenced areas, destroying them will just break the regime all togather without putting Soldier's in harms way.

Cons:

Civilian Casualty. Major problem of fighintg against Gurealla tactics has always been the blurred distiction as to who is an insurgent and who is the rebel. Mass civilain deaths will only further the insurgent cause and could actually vote a party in power who is sympathetic to the regime.

Option 2) Precision Strikes.

Its what the U.S. army is trying to do now and by far it has a better chance of forging long term relationships with Iraq. Isntead of boming the crap out of the entire nation, the plan is to take out hot potato cells and stabilize the region with proper policing.

Pros:

Very or no civilian casulty from the American side; Usually, its the insurgents that end up killing their own people. Cutting the serpent's head may not finish the tail off, but with more and more reflurising stabilized regions begin to show economic promise, people will forget all about the insurgent cause.

Cons: