Re: The President's Plan To Increase Troop Levels

President Bush wants to increase troop levels in Iraq by 15,000 to 30,000 troops in the short term, and up to 70,000 troops in the long term. Sure thing boss...

Where will these troops come from? Kagan [that would be Frederick Kagan, military analyst of the American Enterprise Institute, who came up with the plan that President Bush is espousing] says that the Pentagon will have to expand the size of the Army and Marines by at least 30,000 a year over the next two years. However, according to some very high-ranking officers who deal firsthand with these sorts of issues, the Army can recruit, train, and equip only about 7,000 combat troops a year. This is a physical limit, constrained by the number of bases, trainers, supplies, and other elements of infrastructure.

So, fact #1 is that the Army (and let's assume the Marines as well) can handle only 7,000 recruits each per year... 14,000 total. That would barely meet the plan's minimum goal of 30,000 troops in 2 years. OK... just barely, but that is assuming that not ONE SINGLE SOLDIER leaves the Army or Marines over the next 2 years. (Also, the above quote isn't really clear if that is 30,000 troops total for the Army and Marines, or 30,000 troops each. I assume it is total.)

Kagan writes, "The President must call for young Americans to volunteer to defend the nation in a time of crisis." Given the unpopularity of the president, and of this war, this seems unlikely. After the Sept. 11 attacks, when Bush was at peak popularity, and when the country was experiencing a surge of patriotism, Congress passed a bill expanding the size of the Army by 30,000 troops. Five years later, the Army has actually expanded by just 23,000 troops. It's still 7,000 troops short of that target. How does Kagan expect to attract 30,000 more in just one year, much less to do so two years in a row?

So back when there was a lot of interest in joining up to fight the terrorists... back before the endless redeployments... back before the reserves were called up... back before the reserve reserves were called up... back before Iraq became a deadly quagmire, the Army (let alone the Marines, which is really a tough sell) couldn't meet it's recruitment expansion orders.

Hmm... I wonder (seriously now) if you can take already-enlisted Navy and Air Force personnel and reassign them and retrain them for combat service? That would fix the problem. Of course, we would have no all-volunteer military ever again after that.

My recommendation to the President is that he should find some new allies to loan him 30,000 (or 70,000) troops. The Russian Army could use the work (and the money). Perhaps China? I've got an idea: Invite North Korea's army to come help out in exchange for some diplomatic concessions and lifting of some of the sanctions on their country. They have almost 1 million soldiers sitting around. (Well, there ain't a chance in hell that the DPRK would ever consider that, but it's an idea.) Pakistan comes to mind though. India as well. Throw a trade deal on the table, and just watch how many troops they cough up.

Seriously though: If the United States government wants 30,000 troops pronto, they should go out and buy them because trying to find Americans to step up and do the job is reeeaaallly not going to happen.

---

UPDATE:

I did a little calculating. When I was in the Navy, there were 3 boot camps operating, each one graduating 5–7 companies of 50-75 sailors each week. That gives me a calculation of 37,000 to 78,000 sailors per year. If one assumes that the Army and Marines have the same capacity, that 7,000 number above doesn't seem accurate. Still though, finding recruits... not training them... seems to be the larger problem.