Is the U.S. Military Too Small?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Yes, more money to the troops, less money to wasteful products without application.


You need the middle class to want to join more, it seems, with all those college programs and such, that's it's mostly "poor" people joining up.

---

Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.

It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.

One thing I would do to get more people to join the military is to eliminate certain enlistment requirments. Tattoos, underage drinking/DUIs, juveniles records etc. can all leave a person barred from enlistment, there's more but I really can't think of them right now.

While some of the requirments make sense, others do not; tattoos for instance. Alot of the Marines I know have tattoos on their forearms, yet for someone with tattoos on their forearm to join the Marine Corps they need a waiver. It's rediculous, that someone cannot join the Marine Corps if they have a tattoo on their forearm, but once their in nobody cares.

Underage drinking/DUIs are another issue that are overblown, they have no real affect on someones ability to fight; if someone's an alcoholic that's a problem, but one or two drinking offenses doesn't necesarily make someone an alcoholic.

If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Thanks for the information Redleg.Il give it a little bit of reading.:shakehands: Rotorgun.Finland wasnt part of of NATO,neither Warsow pact. There is still talk in here about joininig NATO,but majority of people are against that.Im not sure what are the reasons behind that we dont want be militarily allied.We just dont.~;)

---

It's the idea that if someone invades, it's so bad that the countries that you would ally with would help you in any case. But you're still unbound so that if a big war happens you might survive it without any scratch, instead of getting involved by default. All the advantages without the disadvantages.

During the Cold war this and the "do not awake the tiger" was the reasons why not Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Both countries was (and still are) still very NATO oriented though.

Thank you, EA.

My post was not intended to be a troll, but to highlight my view of the main issue, which is that US politicians don't really seem to know what role they want the USA to play. That's why I bolded the 'if' and included the inquisitive smiley. An 'imperial' army not only imposes the will of its government by threat and projection, but also by occupation. I accept that the term 'imperial' provokes emotional responses, but it is a word fit for purpose. If there is a more descriptive word, please advise me and I will use it.

Iraq is a good example of a decision to project power without having thought about the necessary troops committed on the ground, for the necessary time, and suffering the necessary casualties - the realities of a pseudo-imperial (nation-building, regime change, whatever is preferred) adventure, rather than the defensive action it was sold as.

Whatever the ambition of the current US administration, I don't believe the American people will ever want to become the 'imperial' power that some neo-cons have written about.

Perhaps unconsciously, the size of the army perhaps reflects this unease?

Another question to those who are advocating the increase in Army numbers (quite innocent, I promise, I'd like to know your opinions :smile:): Given the inevitable casualties associated with projecting power via land force engagement, and the observed impact that has on recruitment, can the Army be increased to the necessary size without conscription?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercian billman

Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.

---

It looks to me like most people are just using the military as a stepping stone, so if you want to enlist more people you either have to make the stepping stone better or make it possible or even desirable for people to have longer military careers.

Quote:

---

It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.

---

Yes, that's what the "" were for, but reading these forums it seems like a lot of people are joing up to get a cheap trip through college. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that won't convince people who can easily afford college as much.

Quote:

---

If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.

---

If you can keep the influx of people about the same and can retain more people, you will have a bigger army. Similarly, if you can get people who are interested in a military career but won't pursue because there's more money to be made in the private sector, to enroll because of increased wages, you get a bigger pool of candidates. There's no reason per se why the quality of recruits has to go down imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's the idea that if someone invades, it's so bad that the countries that you would ally with would help you in any case. But you're still unbound so that if a big war happens you might survive it without any scratch, instead of getting involved by default. All the advantages without the disadvantages.

During the Cold war this and the "do not awake the tiger" was the reasons why not Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Both countries was (and still are) still very NATO oriented though.

---

But that doent aswer to it completely,becouse either of our Nations didnt enter NATO after the Soviet Union fell.Even Estonia is now in it. I believe becouse of the WWII there was and still is an opinion here that others wouldnt necessary come in for the rescue if we were invaded and becouse of that the independent capacity of defence is still very big deal in here.:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

But that doent aswer to it completely,becouse either of our Nations didnt enter NATO after the Soviet Union fell.Even Estonia is now in it. I believe becouse of the WWII there was and still is an opinion here that others wouldnt necessary come in for the rescue if we were invaded and becouse of that the independent capacity of defence is still very big deal in here.:bow:

---

Our capacity was more built on the principle of holding the Russians at bay until reinforcements come or die trying. Official neutrality, unofficial NATO membership. Could explain the disarm and focus shift of the Swedish army today.

As for todays situation: It's simply "why change that has worked well this far?" For the eastern nations joining NATO = closer connections with the west and "never again".
And then we have that NATO contains US and US got a habit of goofy around a bit and that could make NATO countries stuck in something they didn't exactly approve. :bow:

And uhm more on-topic. The US would either need to increase thier troop number or optimize thier occpational capacity on thier boots on the ground. Probably both, if they're going to be able to properly handle an occupation of a country larger than Iraq (and even Iraq itself).

It is not that the military is too small , it is just that the politicians half-baked ideas are too big .

The military can never be big enough; It's like money you always need more.

Regardless of Japan and Germany having been organized forces the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan requires more troops and there should enough troops available to fufill this mission and invade and occupy Iran if it were nessasery. An invasion of Iran will require a lot of troops with such mountainous terrain and their working together with the North Koreans they could fight for a conventinal war for at least a few months. All those caves and tunnel networks will need to be cleared out by ground pounding infantry which takes away almost all the technological advantages we have over Iran. All the bradleys and abrams in the world can't clear tunnel networks. This type of warfare will cause heavy casualties to the US and then there'd also be the difficult task of occupying captured territory which will require shooters to protect our supply lines and such. The only plus to this over the current war in Iraq is that at least their wont' be much foriegn funding of terrorist seeing as Iran is currently funding and training a lot of our problem groups in Iraq.

One problem as many of you have pointed out is with a volunteer army there's no way to get the required troops. There's currently a war going on and any half wit will know that hurts recruiting efforts. So what should be done?

Quote:

---

It is not that the military is too small , it is just that the politicians half-baked ideas are too big .

---

This is one of the reasons armies are needed to go when diplomacy and politics have failed. If more troops had been available for Iraq from the get go I'm sure the situation wouldn't be as bad as it is now. I'd still expect violence and terrorism but at the minimum the insurgents from Syria and Saudi Arabia could be sharply reduced and all those ammo depots that went unguarded with the Iraqi Army was disbanded could have at least been protected form the wholesale looting that happened to them. The Army doesn't decide national policy but it should be fully capable of carrying out whatever is asked of by the President and Congress.

You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.

Yeah but that's in the days of gunboat diplomacy. The US can't simply bomb the crap out of Iran or sieze all it's ports without complete international outrage. I wish it were simple enough still that a battalion of Marines could just sieze Iran's refineries and then make them barter with us to get them back.
And frankly the Royal Marines could kill or massacre whoever they wanted without international outrage. With today's media even the accidental death of civilian will provoke international outrage. Not to mention today's frowning on the razing of cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.

---

To paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, that was because the industrial British were occupying countries where any insurgents were armed with particularly sharp fruit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

To paraphrase Edmund Blackadder, that was because the industrial British were occupying countries where any insurgents were armed with particularly sharp fruit.

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Yes, it's way too small if it is intended to be an imperial army.

:inquisitive:

---

Personally I agree with Banquo, but I will not go further because I do not what it start an arguement.

:focus: Let me draw one comparison.

Armed forces of the USA: 495,000 Total, 125,000 Stationed in the US

Armed forces of the Peoples Repulic of China: 1,000,000 Approx Total (W/ another 1,000,000 Reserve Forces), Locations Undisclosed.

You decide, whether it is too small.



EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

You don't need a large Army to be an Imperial Power. The British Empire managed to secure 1/4th of the Globe with an Army of around 50,000 Stationed Overseas for low intensity conflicts. Of Course, at the time the Royal Navy was nigh' on unstoppable.

---

The British Empire at its peak actually covered 1/5 th of the globe.

No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to. The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.

the US has a perfectably reasonably sized military considering it´s population and economic importance, a peace loving country would have no problem with a military of this dimension.

Now...considering that the US government seems to be of the opinion that you can´t go more than a year or two without starting a war.....~:rolleyes: ....I see how they can be spread a little thin....:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

the US has a perfectably reasonably sized military considering it´s population and economic importance, a peace loving country would have no problem with a military of this dimension.

Now...considering that the US government seems to be of the opinion that you can´t go more than a year or two without starting a war.....~:rolleyes: ....I see how they can be spread a little thin....:juggle2:

---

Of all the conflicts (wars) that the United States have ever been involved in how many have been started by the United States? I am sure you know the answer given your statement here....

You will also discover that the United States Government and the involvement in wars is spread over more time then just a year or two between conflicts.

Generalizations based upon only the last 5 years are often inaccurate as hell.

:dizzy2: :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Of all the conflicts (wars) that the United States have ever been involved in how many have been started by the United States? I am sure you know the answer given your statement here....

You will also discover that the United States Government and the involvement in wars is spread over more time then just a year or two between conflicts.

Generalizations based upon only the last 5 years are often inaccurate as hell.

:dizzy2: :book:

---

very well....point taken...

I´ll take out "started by the United States" and exchange it for "started by the current American Administration"


It´s more accurate like that.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

It looks to me like most people are just using the military as a stepping stone, so if you want to enlist more people you either have to make the stepping stone better or make it possible or even desirable for people to have longer military careers.


Yes, that's what the "" were for, but reading these forums it seems like a lot of people are joing up to get a cheap trip through college. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that won't convince people who can easily afford college as much.

If you can keep the influx of people about the same and can retain more people, you will have a bigger army. Similarly, if you can get people who are interested in a military career but won't pursue because there's more money to be made in the private sector, to enroll because of increased wages, you get a bigger pool of candidates. There's no reason per se why the quality of recruits has to go down imo.

---

I agree with most of what you say except that, retaining more people and keeping the same influx of people will take longer, than simply easing recruiting standards. Easing recruiting standards won't necessarily lead to a decrease in quality either, for instance some services won't let you enlist if you have a GED. To me this is ridiculous, there's really no difference between someone with a GED and someone with a high school diploma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to.

---

That's probably because they just graduated from boot camp, within a year (depending on what they actually do) most of them will be a lot harder. That's because after you put up with so much BS you just stop caring and just do your job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.

---

You'd be surprised how many virgins are in the Marine Corps. When I first got to my platoon I expected everybody to be well versed in strip clubs and prostitutes, but half of my platoon (including myself) is made up of virgins.

point taken:2thumbsup:

I have allot to leran eh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercian billman

Wouldn't increasing salaries just continue to encourage more "poor" people
to enlist? Military salaries aren't great, but it does pay the bills and if your unmarried and have no children like most younger service members, it really isn't that bad.

It's not mostly poor people joining up either, there are people from poor backgrounds, but the majority would probably be considered working class or lower middle class.

One thing I would do to get more people to join the military is to eliminate certain enlistment requirments. Tattoos, underage drinking/DUIs, juveniles records etc. can all leave a person barred from enlistment, there's more but I really can't think of them right now.

While some of the requirments make sense, others do not; tattoos for instance. Alot of the Marines I know have tattoos on their forearms, yet for someone with tattoos on their forearm to join the Marine Corps they need a waiver. It's rediculous, that someone cannot join the Marine Corps if they have a tattoo on their forearm, but once their in nobody cares.

Underage drinking/DUIs are another issue that are overblown, they have no real affect on someones ability to fight; if someone's an alcoholic that's a problem, but one or two drinking offenses doesn't necesarily make someone an alcoholic.

If the US military wants to increase it's size we have to accept the fact that the "quality" of new enlistees will decrease. But that's okay, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out proper comm procedures and you definately don't need a clean police record to fire an M-16.

---

Also the military prepares you for later in life. Being a U.S. Marine like my dad looks pretty darn good on a resume. If you can handle all the bs in the army you can handle most any job out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No its a good size but when I went to the army all american bowl a couple of months ago the milatry there didnt strike me as tough. They look like that werid kid who comes to school in full camo and no one talks to. The milatary should be reserved for drug addicts alcholics and other forms of bad asses. Not guys who cant get laid.

---

I wouldn't really like drug addicts and alcoholics defending my country. Most of those "weird kids" could kick the you know what out of you.

Bad attepmnt at humor my apolgies.

Stepping back a little and looking at the whole picture, it's a little hard to figure out what the strategic vision of the current administration is. Rumsfeld keeps claiming that they want a leaner, tougher, more technologicaly superior armed force, capable of projecting power quickly to any front. That's alright with me, so long as we don't keep opening up too many fronts, which is what they appear to be doing. We Americans are a very task oriented people. We like to see recognizable and reasonable goals which can be accomplished without breaking the economy or causing too many casualties. I don't see this happening when so much "saber rattling" is going on with so many other so called "rougue" nations. It's sort of like that little Looney Toons character Chickenhawk that takes on Longhorn Leghorn....."I'm just a Chickenhawk lookin' for a Chicken!" The problem is that Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Syria, China, and who knows who all, are just a little smarter than ole' Leghorn.
:sultan:

I don't think that the American people will support a policy of aggresive "imperialism", such as is outlined in the PNAC document and the Strategic Planning Guide authored by some of the current members of the Bush administration. To accomplish these strategic goals, a much larger army will be needed IMHO. Does anyone see a draft on the horizon? The middle class would probably not stand too much of that for the likes of the oil barons. I don't have much of a choice, because I am a career soldier. I can't see that the younger generations will stand behind such a plan to dominate, no matter how "benignly," the world and spread "democracy" abroad. Negotiations, with the exception of with terrorists, could surely accomplish the same goals with far less expenditure in lives and money. The only people against such a course are probably the military defense industrialists who stand to make a fortune by a long term war. BTW, I doubt that their children will be joining us in any great numbers.

i think instead of enlarging the US Army they should train it better... i would prefer 50 well trained soldiers with experience to 200 trained soldiers fresh out of the recruitment stations

Good post, rotorgun.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker

Yes. That's why 70% of them voted. Gotcha slick.

---

Voting doesn't mean acceptance for the millitary move USA did..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount_Suribachi

Last I heard, Gitmo held about 600 prisoners. I find it hard to believe that the rural population of Afghanistan is 2,400 men. And many of those 600-odd (granted, more have been through) are non-Afghans.

---

I haven't got something from my mouth.. I heard that in a documentary about the situation in Afghanistan a few months back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Good post, rotorgun.

:2thumbsup:

---

Thank you. Although I agree with GiantMonkeyMan that quality is better than quantity, one still needs to be able to secure one's gains in the little game of world domination that we are playing.
:end: As the Russians were fond of saying "quantity brings a quality all its own."
The other equation not being factored in by many who blindly accept the Rumsfeldian rhetoric of the modern day doublespeak is just how many military functions are being handled by civilian contractors. This is also greatly affecting reenlistments in many logistics and combat arms fields. Why reenlist for being an aircraft mechanic, vehicle mechanic, truck driver, avionics and communications repairer, infantryman or M.P. (security forces) when one can do the same job for KBR, L3 Vertex, Dynacorps, etc. for over four times the pay of a PFC or a SP4? Would you remain in the Army unless you were already a career soldier? Incidentilly, many of these companies are part of the United Defense Technologies Inc., just one of the corporate entities that is a member of a large investment group with direct ties with the Bush family. (No, this is not some kind of conspiracy theory. It is a documented fact.) Not bad for a bunch of former damnyankees turned :cowboy:, eh?

“I think instead of enlarging the US Army they should train it better... i would prefer 50 well trained soldiers with experience to 200 trained soldiers fresh out of the recruitment stations”. Here you’ve got a problem. To keep a check point, and in a guerrilla war it is something you have to do, you need men. Trained or not, your soldiers will have to do 4 hours rest 2 hours guard. And you can’t keep the same platoon on the same post for various reasons, one being they will loose their training…
And training for what? I was trained to fight the Red Wave which could have swept across Europe. Didn’t happened, fortunately, but the basic training of ALL modern armies is completely irrelevant confronted with the dissymmetric war concept.
The enemy never played the game you planned. No Iraqis will attack head on an Abram. The insurgent/terrorist knows the US soldiers are armoured of Kevlar with a fire doctrine which is basically fire enough to stop the enemy to do the same. So, they invent the Side Road bomb.
People thought it was not Vietnam because no jungle. No need, towns are good enough for urban guerrilla. And tanks and APC suddenly became well, put aside.
Like the French and the Spanish during the Rif War (1919-1926), the US and the Coalition of Willing controlled the territory covered by their shadow. Not that the population is ENTIRELY against them, but the fighting minority is enough to make the life difficult for them.
For the moment, there are no war opponents who are Pro-Iraqi resistance. That is probably because the Islamism roots of the most visible movement. But, if the Iraqis should succeed to expel this element and base their guerrilla on Nationalist Movement, things can change.
I am afraid, to destroy the guerrilla Us and others will have to sent more troops, better quality or not, if they want to succeed to conduct search and destroy operations, to walk in the ills, the mountains, the marshes and the valleys of Iraq to find the weapons, to rebuilt the schools and to repair electricity and water supplies.

Unfortunately whilst they are searching and destroying, then proceeding to rebuild the place you've just bombed does not impress the locals. Ingrates, I know...

America et al was wanted in 1991. There was a good chance areas would be taken without a fight and the people would welcome the Americans. Well, we stood as Saddam slaughtered the very people we told to revolt. Funnily enough they have not forgotten that.

So we sent in on a pretext that was so weak it would be a joke unless the USA was behind it. Much easier for Saddam to create an "us and them" divide - which still exists.

More troops to search and destroy? More Marines to loose it and kill some locals? More men who never wanted to be there and resent the locals almost as much as they are resented?

You can put down insurgents with an army that is hated by the inhabitants. The Russians showed us that after WW2. You just kill people and deport until there is no fight left in anyone, then move in others to completely destroy all hope.

That is not possible. Nor is winning whilst men are prepared to die to harm the Great Infidel.

~:smoking: