Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
How Many Ground Troops Does the United States Need?
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


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. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
On the right track
I may be the only liberal who posts on TH who agrees that we need at least a 650,00 man army, probably more. I was horrified at the cost-cutting binge back in the 80s and 90s, with base closings, force reduction, and the general delusion that the US would never agaain need to be able to deploy large, effective ground forces again.

Historically, the US has often been caught a dollar short and a day late when it comes to military resources and capabilities. This is a major flaw in how Americans (of both parties) tend to look at the world at large. Americans really do seem to think that "peace" is the normal or default position in the world; it is not. If you look carefully, war is being made somewhere 24/7. If there is a "normal" condition, it is surely war, interrupted by brief periods of peace (which disaggregate easily into small conflicts when you look closely).

Conservatives don't have to be the only people who know it's a dangerous world and that our country's security requires us to recognize this truth. [I appreciate Handy's informative post; I hadn't followed the genesis of the Abrams tank so closely--yes, I'm a liberal Democrat and academic who likes military hardware.]

For a realistc, chilling, and amazing read, check out historian Niall Ferguson's " The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Decline of the West" (London / New York : Penguin Press, 2006). Sobering.

Jamie
If you're still here bud, I gotta disagree with you about the 2yr. manditory. you still have the same problem- just get em trained and turn em loose to civillian life. No return for your investment.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.