Deficit, Budget, and War

[Abu Suleyman]

Does the number required not depend on your doctrine and tactical principles? If it does, then the question becomes are those principles currently in place the best for the world as it is today? Do we have 500K or more nearly a Million?

I agree, and I am basing the 500k on the roughly half a mil active Army, since I assume that AF and Navy missions wouldn't change all that much. I also presume that the Marines mission wouldn't change all that much either, since it sounds a lot like what you are describing.

I would opt for more troops, perhaps about 1.5 to 2 M -- but with only about 350-400K active; the rest would be in the Guard and Reserve. That 350-400K does not count the USMC which is not going away...

I think if I were absolute commander of the military I would be even more radical than you would. I would have no problem with the configuration that you propose, but I would say that we should also allow people to enter and leave the military periodically as they choose.

Basically, (and I realize this is an oversimplification, but not by a lot) the military views the world as either in or out. Anything you did on the outside does not matter, and once you are out it can be very hard to get back in. With a few important exceptions, if you come into the military you start at the bottom whether E-1 or O-1. If you get out, and I mean out-out and not into the reserves, anything that you do does not matter should you attempt to return. The net effect is that there is only one door into the military building, and lots of doors out.

I believe that we should be flexible in allowing people entrance and exit to the military, and not treat everything that happened outside the military as if it doesn't matter. Of course, there really is nothing like combat arms except in the military, but truthfully supply chains, intelligence, maintenance and a whole host of other issues are almost perfectly analogous within and without the military. Why should someone who has been doing intel for the past ten years as a GS-whatever have to start out as a 2LT and hope he gets intel. Moreover, why not allow people to take breaks from the military, learn new things, and return at a rank and pay grade appropriate to the level of their abilities.

This is how things used to be, and it is how things are in the rest of government and in the medical community. I think that a military more integrated in our society would benefit both society and the military and society. I confess that I have no idea how we would have to configure our military with such a structure, and it would probably take some trial and error to get it right. (And you thought I was an inside the box type).

I don't agree with inevitable but it is certainly a possibility and therefor needs to acknowledged in plans.

Inevitable is probably a strong word. It isn't inevitable in the same sense a perhaps an asteroid on a collision course with earth is inevitable. It is inevitable in the same sense that an idiot with money will end up broke. Theoretically the idiot could avoid calamity, but he is an idiot. Theoretically the bureaucracy could avoid those problems but...

I again state that it is possible to control territory without occupying it provided one is trained and equipped to do so. An MRAP is not the vehicle of choice for that, nor is Bradley or an M1 -- neither is a helicopter. OTOH, if you want to physically occupy space, then the ground vehicles have a use -- the Helicopter is still not a good choice for the movement of people (okay for supplies). It's not even good for commanders who become physically and emotionally separated from their troops. Not good for the Troops because it physically and psychologically separates them from the ground on which they operate.

Insert countless stories of misuse of equipment here.

Raids aren't the only other option, just one I cited.

I used the nomenclature of "raids" because, although you did not specifically say it, your strategy seems to imply short duration and therefore a planned exit. An operation where the exit is planned used to be the definition of a raid. It doesn't have to be a "raid" in the classic sense of running up, raising hell, and leaving, but for lack of a better word, but anything from sabotage of a nuclear power plant to the 1979 Sino-Viet-namese war qualifies using my definition.

If you do raids, you aren't looking at three month deployments, more like a week or two. In any event, you'd have to work on selling me on deployments (in the current usage of the term) of less than a year.

I suppose when I said deployment I meant time away from home, and not necessarily away from homestation. Nevertheless, it is almost an axiom of organization that the more people who become involved, the longer things take. When the Marines ship out for some thing, no matter how large or small, it generally means 7 months away from family. I think that if we could keep it down to 3 we would be lucky. I could be wrong though.

I understand all the reasons for shorter deployment, I just disagree. Lengthy tours in unfriendly places go with the job; those not prepared for that should find other employment -- one reason why I say a smaller active force; fewer will join if the deployment rules change.

Unfortunately, smaller organizations usually result from a higher attrition rate, as well as a lower recruitment rate, which can lead to less institutional knowledge and therefore less experience. There is no way to know at the beginning who will last 20+ years, so it is not like you can recruit only those who will make it.

The loss of continuity, tactically and operationally is not worth the slight benefit gained (I realize most will not agree with this but we may see how that works with some folks in Afghanistan in the near future).Yes and no; longer enlistments / active duty requirements, better initial training and more unit training -- as opposed to units that piddle around in garrison a lot -- will mean less time in training because people would spend more time doing.

I think you are talking about the Victorian Era British model. I couldn't agree more. This is where my in and out model of the military would work. I bet we could get plenty of all kinds of people to sign up for long tours of understanding and controlling but not occupying area, if they knew that upfront. Stay a long time and get the job done; then return home and do it again or don't.

Congress and the Mothers of America do not want truly competent and dangerous armed forces; just moderately competent. However, my point was and is that interventions in other nations should be avoided because we do not do them well, they do not suit the American psyche and impatient nature, are more expensive in all aspects than several alternatives and we -- as you originally said -- cannot afford the force we now have and some drastic reprogramming will be required in the future.

No argument here, except to say that we aren't alone in our incompetence. It seems to be a flaw of human nature that we are seized with the uncontrollable desire to meddle in the affairs of others, but are deprived of the ability to do so effectively.


All that said, and it seems like we actually do see eye to eye on some if not most of these issues, I think that such a change bodes ill for two groups in particular: International Organizations which rely on American soldiers for the heavy lifting, and small or less militarily capable nations that rely on the US for their defense. While not what the US military is designed for, their bodies do a lot of the work for groups like NATO or the UN, who would be hard pressed to even exist without them. And lets face it there are plenty of countries, including some whom we consider powerful, whose basic military strategy is "Hold out (or don't) and let the Americans rescue us." I do worry that a precipitous transition from our current status brought on by the many negative problems resulting from bankruptcy, could result in destabilizing the international arena, and make the world for us, and everyone else, less secure.