Article

2004-01-29 Home Front

U.S. Army Plans Four-Year Boost of 30,000 Forces

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-01-29 9:02:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 He rejected mounting demands from Republicans and Democrats in Congress to raise the Armyâs 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|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-1-29 9:27:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-29 10:08:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-29 10:51:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "93rd Volunteer Infantry," indeed!
The unit motto is, of course, "Let's roll!"

Posted by Mike 2004-1-29 11:00:41 AM|| 2004-1-29 11:00:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-29 11:43:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-29 11:46:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-1-29 11:49:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 At this point in time, they need bullets.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-1-29 1:47:09 PM|| 2004-1-29 1:47:09 PM|| Front Page Top

10:13 B
08:14 Tresho
05:38 Raptor
00:01 Desert Blondie
00:00 Lucky
23:51 Rafael
23:25 tu3031
23:18 Lucky
23:18 tu3031
23:14 Gasse Katze
23:13 Jarhead
23:10 tu3031
23:03 Mike Sylwester
22:52 Lucky
22:48 4thInfVet
22:46 tu3031
22:46 Jarhead
22:46 4thInfVet
22:43 Jarhead
22:42 S
22:42 4thInfVet
22:41 tu3031
22:41 CrazyFool
22:40 someone else