Is US Fighting Force Big Enough?
Is US Fighting Force Big Enough? - Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor
Quote:
American's armed forces are growing bigger to reduce the strains from seven years of war, but if the US is confronting an era of "persistent conflict," as some experts believe, it will need an even bigger military.
A larger military could more easily conduct military and nation-building operations around the world. But whether the American public has the appetite to pursue and pay for such a foreign-policy agenda, especially after more than five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, is far from clear.
Last week, the Army released a new manual on "
stability operations" that outlines for the Army a prominent global role as a nation-builder. The service will maintain its ability to fight conventional land wars, but the manual's release signals that it expects future conflicts to look more like Iraq or Afghanistan than World War II. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not publicly supported expanding the force beyond what is already planned, he has said the United States must prepare for more counterinsurgency wars like the ones it is fighting now - a hint that a larger military may be necessary.
Some analysts are certain of that need...
Much more at the link.
I'l buy that with a twist
Will, a reasonable question:
Quote:
The question should not be "Is the Force big enough?" - but what can the force of X number do?
I'd also say its counterpart might be:
What can a force of "X" not do?
Also worth considering:
"X" is not always going to be quantitative; "X" has a qualitative aspect as well, and that one is defined by the requirements. The requirements = policy/military objectives + conditions. Which may get to the root of what Ron is asking as both the conditions and the policy/military objectives are subject to change in ways that cannot be predicted very well. They are both interactive, and unstable.
Best, Rob
The other side of the coin
The U.S. Armed Forces are correctly sized now. They will also be correctly sized in the future, regardless of what that size is. However, that "size" (really a capability/capacity cap) will limit what we use that force for. It will mean that the U.S. cannot run willy-nilly (especially unilaterally) at every boogie man that raises its ugly head. Other elements of national power will have to play a greater role.
And for those potentially massive, can't afford to lose contingencies, we'll have to have well-prepared alliances and coalitions to lend a hand.
This is not being fatalistic or idealistic, it's simply being realistic.
There exists a problem with these theories
I think...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
This means until we come to some agreements on ends, ways and means, roles and missions, etc. its may not be a good idea to address the DOTMLPF issues in such a way that become either self constraining, or do not meet the needs of policy.
It has been my observation over the years that we're highly unlikely to ever get such an agreement that has the slightest permanence and therefor lends itself to the coherent development of doctrine -- or even of force structure. The Politicians will always want and get wiggle room barring a major existential threat -- as WW II was perceived to be.
Accordingly, this:
Quote:
...my sense is they are doing the things they need to be doing based on their mission - e.g. they are writing the doctrine that needs to be written.
is probably as correct as it can be under the circumstances.
As it has generally been and will most likely continue to be... :cool: