Is the U.S. Military Too Small?

[English assassin]

well that is a bit exagarated but how could you possibly deal with an invasion?

Hmm. Canada and Mexico, they can probably handle. Anyone else has to go by sea. Past 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, and if I counted correctly 49 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines, plus all the other toys.

So unless they get attacked from Mars they are probably going to be OK.

[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.

[mercian billman]

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.

[doc_bean]

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.

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.

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.

[mercian billman]

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.

[Strike For The South]

Bad attepmnt at humor my apolgies.

[rotorgun]

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.


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.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

Good post, rotorgun.

[rotorgun]

Good post, rotorgun.

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.
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 , eh?

[Joker85]

Hmm. Canada and Mexico, they can probably handle. Anyone else has to go by sea. Past 10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers, and if I counted correctly 49 Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines, plus all the other toys.

So unless they get attacked from Mars they are probably going to be OK.

Also last time I checked NATO was still binding. So if the only country in the world (china) that would want to, and would perhaps have the ability to mount an attempt (you are right they would never get through the navy) they would then still have to deal with being at war with all of western europe +australia/NZ.

Of course assuming those countries backed their NATO obligations. If they backstabbed us and didn't, there are a few countries we could still count on no matter what(UK being at the top of the list).

So 100,000 soldiers with the capability to draft millions (16,000,000 Americans were in the military during ww2) is more than enough to hold off the tattered remains of any force that managed to make it past the US Navy until more units were drafted and reinforcements from allies arrived.

[x-dANGEr]

It's sad that the Army that could fight the Germans and Japanese at the same time (granted we had a few years to buildup) can't occupy nations the size of Iraq and Afghanistan and not be able to at least threaten a nation such as Iran.

They fought the Germans and Japanese as organised forces.. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as Vietnam, the people doesn't want to be conquered (You may call it 'freed', but nah, it really isn't), and so they will resist.

One more note about Afghanistan, go to any village and you will find at least a quarter of the men in it 'taken by soldiers', and by that I mean to that evil prison in Cuba, got my point? USA is fueling hate for it in the souls of the countries she's currently standing in, resulting in an even harder time for their army.

[Joker85]

the people doesn't want to be conquered (You may call it 'freed', but nah, it really isn't

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

[Navaros]

If the USA intends to continue with it's oil crusades against all the oil-rich countries, then yes the U.S. Military is too small and if they ever get attacked by another superpower they are gonna be in big trouble.

[Fragony]

Hey look what the lord just dragged in! Haven't seen you for a while here

[Kagemusha]

If you want to have more troops available.I think the obvious place where to release those would be Europe.There is no more Soviet Union and Russia doesnt pose a serious threat of Invasion to Europe.So how about redeploying the V Corps and Southern European Task Force?

[Redleg]

If you want to have more troops available.I think the obvious place where to release those would be Europe.There is no more Soviet Union and Russia doesnt pose a serious threat of Invasion to Europe.So how about redeploying the V Corps and Southern European Task Force?

Last round of the BRAC commission was supposed to review just that.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2...0503_5009.html

http://www.brac.gov/docs/final/ExecutiveSummary.pdf

But it seems the politics and costs of removing the United States Military from Europe once again entered into the equation about what best to do with the United States Military. This is probably the best written piece available on the web for the general public.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=1


However here is where some of our forces are leaving


http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/...17-794340.html

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=3

For anyone interested that is where I would suggest one start to research the answer to such a question as posed by Kagemusha is by the way is a very valid proposal that has been addressed.


I found this site while researching the possible withdraw of US Forces from Europe but have not read it completely yet, but found the initial browse through interesting.

http://www.assembly-weu.org/en/docum...2003/1819.html

[Mount Suribachi]

One more note about Afghanistan, go to any village and you will find at least a quarter of the men in it 'taken by soldiers', and by that I mean to that evil prison in Cuba, got my point?

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.