How many ground troops does the United States need?

Answering that question depends on your vision of the future --
specifically, the military challenges the United States will face over
the next 10 to 15 years.

An "old future" provides some perspective on the current debate over
U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps "end strength" (Pentagonese for the
number of active duty personnel authorized by Congress).

Let's return to 1990, just before Saddam invaded Kuwait. The U.S. Army
had around 750,000 soldiers on active duty; the U.S. Marine Corps had
197,000 Marines. That same year, the U.S. population broke 250 million.
Today, the U.S. population is slightly over 300 million.

That "old future" occurred during the final phases of the Cold War.
Department of Defense budgeteers had already begun paring Cold War force
structure. Though the Soviet Union hadn't officially dissolved,
cost-cutters identified Cold War air wings and armored divisions as
expensive legacies.

Desert Storm briefly delayed the planned decline in strength. Based on
"the near-term future" the Defense and Congress envisioned, the United
States didn't need Cold War troop levels.

However, by 1995, peacekeeping commitments began stressing the personnel
system. Then, the United States entered the Balkans, and hasn't quite
left yet.

The Army asked for a 30,000 troop "plus up" in the fiscal year 1997
budget request to meet those personnel requirements. It was denied.

The Clinton administration began using the reserves as an operational
force rather than as a strategic, war-winning reserve. The Bush
administration continued to do this after 9-11, nudging Army end
strength from around 480,000 in 2001 to approximately 515,000 today.
While that's arguably close to the 30,000 "missing" since 1996, it's a
far cry from the forces on hand on Aug. 2, 1990, when Saddam's tanks
were on the move. It's also proved to be inadequate to support Iraq,
Afghanistan, peacekeeping operations and emergency contingencies.

In December 2006, former U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pete Schoomaker
told Congress that the active duty Army needed more soldiers. The Army
would grow to 547,000 by 2012, adding 65,000 new soldiers over a
five-year period.

However, the current Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last
week that the Army needs 547,000 active troops within the next three
years. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates supports Casey's boost. Gates
also advocates expanding the Marine Corps' active force 27,000, from
175,000 to 202,000 Marines.

I know it takes time to recruit and train soldiers, making a very rapid
build-up unwieldy if not unrealistic, but in my opinion Casey's request
is short by 100,000 troops.

Last week, the Los Angeles Times featured a discussion between Phil
Carter, a Los Angeles attorney who served with the 101st Airborne in
Iraq, and me on military-related issues. Carter and I agreed that a
650,000-soldier U.S. Army is a more realistic figure given personnel
demands and expected commitments. Carter argued that "America can no
longer afford to run its steak-and-lobster national security strategy on
a McDonald's budget."

I agreed with his assessment, but pointed out that the personnel issue
has another subtle dimension that stretches U.S. military personnel.

America expects its military to win its wars, which means having
war-fighters proficient with weaponry running from bayonets to smart
bombs. But America also expects its military to competently use a
trowel, auditing software and a doctor's bag, and occasionally provide
legal, political and investment advice. That's been the military's
burden since 1992, when the Era of Peacekeeping replaced the Cold War.
Sept. 11 replaced the Era of Peacekeeping with a global war over the
conditions of modernity, where the trowels and investment advice are
often as important as combat skills.

We need more troops. That will mean spending tax dollars -- but with 300
million people, we have the recruiting pool to support a 650,000 soldier
Army. We also need to get the skills of U.S. government civilian
agencies into the field. That will take tax dollars and focused
political leadership.

well i feel that the money is already in the budget to

support such an increase if it is so disirered

the money could be removed from the forieghn ad budget

if our so called allies are not willing to send a reasonable amountof
troops to various parts of the world to help with
maintaining the status quo then pull the aid and put it in the defense
budget

i am not referring to the aid going for food to the third world
hunger programs

What would be needed in the way of force structure to secure our
borders, provide a rapid deployment force capabable of providing
emergency warfighting support for our neighbors and supply
infrastructure capable of supporting that RDF for extended periods of
time when necessary.

By the above I mean no forces for war fighting on foreign soil. Only
the forces necessary to defend us should war come to our shores or the
shores of our neighbors.

The problem with having a military large enough to carry war elsewhere
is the probablity that someone will use it to carry war elsewhere.

Good post AB..I concur completely..

thats the point kinda we have troops all over the world

these places need to learn to defnd their way of life

if they wanna keep it

and if they don't want to we should not do it for them

lets make sure we send enuf troops over there so we are completely
vulnerable here at home...

Davinci>

Realistically speaking...

How many americans own weapons.

Just how vulnerable are we.

How long would even a large force be agains your average neighborhood.

I realise we have americans that don't get along with other americans
but I would say that anyone attacking us on our soil would cause an
immediate and very unpleasant response.

We would go back to squabbling amongst ourselves as soon as we buried
them.

I agree AB...course it would depend on what forces would dare come
here..
I have my thoughts on that ...but will keep it to myself to avoid the
whole
conspiracy thing

0

AB, I guess I'd have to agree with you. I have wondered for a long
time, why are we the interveneing force in every countries issue. Why
don't we 'defend' this country, as you say. With our resoursed
conserved and maintianed, we would be able to offer SERVICE to so many
more in providing relief and assistance, the AID you speak of. We
fought our civil war, we became stronger for it. If civil war in
another country intalls a leadership against us, we don't send aid. If
they attack us, we defend. If a civil war installs a government willing
to work with us, send the aid they need to recover and rebuild - we're
gonna do that anyway, this way we saved the cost to us of fighting their
war.

It has long been believed that we would defend this country best by
keeping war away from our shores our lands. If there is any bold enough
to attack, we will see what allies we really have.

Perhaps we need to stop being a peace-keeper, and be the hospital of the
world, the calming voice of the world. If any is lulled into attack -
as AB inferred, they would be in for a hell of a fight. The more we
have to loose, the harder we will fight to keep it. The more animosity
we have toward this government and it's leaders, well, wouldn't want to
test the outcome of that one. Fighting a war from another shore, might
just created the kind of havoc that would allow the makings of another
civil war, right here.

war creates havoc. and wealth for those who make the bombs. war is all
about makin money war is in my opinion and can never be
justified.humans are still swimming in barbarizm we are highly
evolved