| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| U.S. Army Plans Four-Year Boost of 30,000 Forces |
| 2004-01-29 |
| Strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army will boost its forces by 30,000 through emergency authority it expects to last four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told Congress on Wednesday. About time. But Schoomaker, testifying to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, rejected calls from lawmakers for a permanent increase in forces, saying it would undermine efforts to streamline and modernize the Army. "Right now, I’ve been given the authority by the secretary of defense to grow the Army by 30,000 people ... under emergency powers," Schoomaker said. He said the authority from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was to last for four years. That’s fine, you can always tweek the numbers later. We need more boots on the ground now. The Army is already about 11,000 soldiers over the 482,000 troop limit authorized by Congress under the emergency provision the Pentagon invoked, largely through "stop-loss" orders that block soldiers from leaving or retiring and through re-enlistment incentives. Schoomaker told reporters after the hearing the Army would move quickly to add nearly 20,000 more forces, saying, "We want to achieve it as quickly as we can." He said money for the additional troops would come from the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan Congress passed in November. Schoomaker said he wanted the additional troops to be incorporated into the Army’s efforts to transform itself into a lighter, more mobile force for post-Cold War conflicts. Light infantry, more MPs, etc. He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Army’s authorized troop levels, which he said would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes. "What I stress again is we should not make a commitment for a permanent end-strength (troop) increase at this time," Schoomaker said. He said that would result in the kind of bloated, poorly trained force that plagued the Army in the 1970s. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #8 At this point in time, they need bullets. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-1-29 1:47:09 PM |
| #7 What I'm not sure we need are the new division structure that is being talked of of five brigades each with two battalions. I'd rather see a return to the square division and the regiment, assuming the regiments are more deployable on an independent basis. Having umpteen brigades running around with no intermediate command/support structure between them and the corps just doesn't work for me. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2004-1-29 11:49:48 AM |
| #6 He said money for the additional troops would come from the $87 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan Congress passed in November. The question is whether Congress will approve more funding to pay for these additional troops once funding from the $87B special appropriation runs out. If not, we'll have to reduce troop levels again. The antagonism against Rumsfeld is misplaced. He wants to make sure that our guys go up against the opposition with the best equipment money can buy. The reason our guys got slaughtered by the enemy in the early days of WWII wasn't because we had insufficient men - it was because we had crappy equipment. Equipment development cycles have lengthened appreciably, while warfighting tempos have speeded up. This is why we need to keep a robust appropriations program going - our advantage remains equipment. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-29 11:46:50 AM |
| #5 As I Genuflect in prayer, I pray to the Allmighty that the powers that be won't take any of our Armor from our current maneuver columns, and that the 7th ID(L) will return to the Active component in all its former greatness and splendor. The 7th Infantry Division was a light outfit perfectly tailored for Trash-can-istan, The Triangle, etc. Perhaps someday the new CSA will REMOB the Bayonets as a "Time on Target" unit speciffically designed to lay waste to insurgents, Fedayeen, Mujahaddin, and other undesirable cock-sucker-heads(TM) that we currently are facing. Long live the Cabbage Patch Kids! |
| Posted by: Bodyguard 2004-1-29 11:43:55 AM |
| #4 "93rd Volunteer Infantry," indeed! The unit motto is, of course, "Let's roll!" |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-1-29 11:00:41 AM |
| #3 Actually Ptah, what Congress wants to do is create legislation for more boots, but not the FUNDING for those extra people. The money to pay them has to come from somewhere and that to Schoomaker means he has to cut some project the Army has to get it. On the other hand if hes using temporary orders/authorization he can always ask for more spending money for the initiative without being legally hassled. |
| Posted by: Val 2004-1-29 10:51:23 AM |
| #2 Schoomaker does make a good point, and I say this as I support increasing the size of the Army -- we don't want to go back to the 70's. Bring the strength up carefully. I favor doing a brigade at a time of light infantry, MP's, and civil affairs units. Independent brigades would be very useful for peacekeeping/peace enforcement situations, and that would allow us to hold heavier units back in the states for when we really need them. The "93rd Volunteer Infantry Brigade" has a nice ring to it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-1-29 10:08:36 AM |
| #1 He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Army’s authorized troop levels, which he said would force the Army to expand permanently before it had made needed structural and operating changes. I've always thought we needed two more Army Divisions, but it appears that no one at the Pentagon, perhaps including Rummy, knows what we want to train any new people to be. The MP issue is a good point: we definitely needed more MPs in Iraq, and their training will give them shoo-in jobs as civilian police, swat teams, and guards at strategic facilities, so there'll be no heartburn to let them go after 4 years. Also, the call is significant: It means we anticipate doing more "Iraq" style actions in the future. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-1-29 9:27:50 AM |