Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
Does the failure of that force to contain the insurgent threat mean our military needs a (surge) size more troops to get the requisite number of men capable of doing the job? Or was it simply a numbers problem?
I would argue that there was no real planning for an insurgency, and when it did begin, nobody at the top was willing to declare it so, and adjust strategy accordingly. Pax on the ground saw the issues and dealt best they could, but when higher pulls the too few troops to secure a country of millions off the streets and back to FOBs, you can only do so much.

A ten fold increase has not lead to more strategic success if one defines that as denying freedom of maneuver to the enemy. With 70K plus troops, there should be one in every valley.
If there was a patrol in every valley, the Taliban would just wait it out. If we built Combat Outposts in every valley, the Afghans may see us as occupiers. No win either way. Need to convince the Afghans its in their own best interest to keep the bad guys out.

Do these examples point to a misuse (or under-use) of our troops on the ground? If so, and if our current conflict is what is driving the "bigger military" idea I think there is any easier answer.
I was in Iraq in 05-06, so I cannot speak of conditions now, but while I was there, forces were consolidated to FOBs. There were lots of people that never left, though in their defense, they were CS/CSS, so there was no real reason for them to leave. Unless you want to give every MOS a non-standard ILO mission, you need more combat arms if you want to put more bodies out in the fight. Same problem in Vietnam... 500,000 pax, only 60,000 infantry in the fight (that number is pulled deep from professional readings past, so if it is off, someone please correct me). The Army has a very heavy tail.


The size military we currently have is capable of a great deal more. Barring a land war with China or Russia, the size is probably big enough if policy remains reasonable.
If policy remains "reasonable," volunteers will continue to leave the service due to burn out. If the Army is going to constantly do 1 on, 1 off, it will eventually wear out. The goal of 1 on, 2 off, is still ways off for BCTs if the commitment continues. There needs to be a drawn down in CENTCOM, or relocation from somewhere else. Otherwise, the force is not big enough.

My pratical experience leads me to believe that there is an enormous amount of waste out there. Few soldiers spend more time on patrol than in the FOB. None, I would hazard a guess (SOF excluded).
Can't speak to this, but those units patrolling and living at COPs may disagree.

I would propose linking redeployment to mission accomplishment. For instance, X BDE, you will pacify Anbar, you will meet these goals (civil, military, infastructure, political.....) and you will go home. Higher obviously verifies completion/success. If this takes 6 months, great, two years, fine, ten years, so be it. Individual replacement begins after two years on a points system.
Sounds good (well, semi-good) on paper, but how would you quantify or verify these goals? What happens when the goals/missions change 1 month in? "Hey, we pacified the area, you didn't say anything about keeping foreign fighter infiltration routes closed. We're done, send us home." Individual deployments up to 2 years if/when mission creeps? Goodbye to the volunteer force. Everyone in today is sacrificing more than 99%, but unless "you spread the wealth around" that is probably too much.


Instead of "making it" to 365 days, however you do that, and punching out, this would give commanders a reason to risk casualties, be more aggressive, generally go after the enemy continously. Points for awards, patrols, whatever, are incentives for the soldiers. Also, knowing that their deployment is a mission makes it much easier to understand "why" they are there.

Not sure it is a good idea, but it is less expensive than adding a division.
Commanders should not be counting the days, though as humans, they likely are. They should be caring for their Soldiers, and accomplishing the mission. Adding points for redeployment may lead to cheating, backstabbing, etc... It would also send your best performers home the quickest and destroy unit cohesion and integrity. You may save 10-15K needed in a division, but you might add that many in the staff/bureaucracy needed to track these points/goals.