How Big An Army Does America Need? Posted by Michael Cohen

Several weeks ago, the New York Times offered a maddening editorial calling for a 90,000 troop expansion of the armed forces - truly an idea in search of a strategic rationale. (Why again does America need a 750,000 soldier army?)

But on Sunday the Times really went overboard with an editorial calling for this expansion of the military to be paid for with cuts to the Navy and Air Force.

The United States enjoys total dominance of the world’s seas and skies and will for many years to come. The Army and the Marines have proved too small for the demands of simultaneous ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are the forces most likely to be called on in future interventions against terrorist groups or to rescue failing states. Reducing the Navy by one carrier group and the Air Force by two air wings would save about $5 billion a year.

There is much here to chew on. First, the U.S Navy and Air Force represent this nation's most significant asymmetrical advantages; we have absolute control over the global commons (namely the air and the sea). Diminishing America's advantage in these two areas is quite simply a bad idea. But, taking funds from the Navy and the Air Force and using it to expand the ground force. That is a terrible, head-shakingly bad idea.

It is our large ground force that provides the most limited military advantage for the United States - and if anything, when deployed, can serve as a real liability to U.S. strategic interests. It is far more difficult and extraordinarily expensive to mobilize our ground forces (not to mention, quite difficult to get them out), they quickly become fair game for insurgents and guerrilla attacks (as we've seen in Iraq) and is a blunt instrument when scalpels are generally more effective in confronting the transnational and non-state challenges of the 21st century. Indeed our Navy and in particular our Air Force are often far better for dealing with these threats.

Think for a second about the last three wars the U.S. has fought. The Iraq War, a manpower-heavy, counter-insurgency focused conflict, has been a quagmire. Not only is our Army ill-equipped for long-term deployments so too is the country as a whole. But then look at Kosovo, Afghanistan, even the first Gulf War. In each of these conflicts, the Air Force took the lead, with far more positive results.  While I realize that each of these wars are unique and not necessarily comparable, if there is a lesson of the post-Cold War era, it is that air power and to a lesser extent naval power represents America's greatest strategic advantage. Now, why the New York Times would think that building up our ground force at the expense of a cheaper and generally more effective investment in the Navy and Air Force is difficult to comprehend.

What's even harder to understand is the Times' argument that the U.S army is going to be "called on in future interventions against terrorist groups or to rescue failing states."

Again, while other methods would seem more appropriate in dealing with both of these threats does the New York Times really believe that the country is ready for another massive deployment of U.S. troops? It's nearly impossible to imagine such an event occurring in the near-term. Unless the U.S is prepared to once again send 250,000 troops into harm's way then there is little necessity for building a ground force of 750,000 troops. How much additional security will America receive from 90,000 additional troops and at a cost of $110 billion over 6 years? Very little.

And the notion that our army is most likely to be called on for rescuing failing states or even waging war against terrorist groups strikes me as foolish strategic thinking. If the past five years has taught us any one thing it is that there are many better tools in the arsenal to deal with both of these challenges. If anything our army should be the least likely option to be called on -- or at the very least should be the option of last resort.

Comments

[Jon]

I mean, I think the argument is that cuts to Air Force and Navy spending will not drastically diminish our dominance of air and sea. How many F-22s do we need?

And while I agree it's unlikely (I hope) to see another massive troop deployment anytime soon, it's no secret that a key tenet of COIN is having enough troops. If you'll recall, many more prescient estimates of troop requirements for Iraq called for 600,000+ soldiers.

[Eric Martin]

Why again does America need a 750,000 soldier army?

But Michael, aren't you fond of defending the use of contractors and other hired guns? Wouldn't a larger army obviate the need to bring in private contractors - with all the jurisdictional and mission related problems that accompany them?

[Don Bacon]

The fact that "we have absolute control over the global commons" is absolutely a bad idea. It has led to fruitless military campaigns, diversion of funds needed domestically to useless military spending, out-of-control corporate welfare, the dependence of congressional representatives on Pentagon largess, global hatred and the nation's bankruptcy among other things.

"Future interventions against terrorist groups or to rescue failing states" will only be abetted by this false reasoning which seems to be a mainstay here on Democracy Arsenal.

[Michael Cohen]

Eric, I will try to write a longer post on this, but a larger army of 90,000 troops would have no impact on the use of contractors since almost all of these new troops would be combat soldiers, which of course is a task never done by contractors. The use of contractors to fulfill menial jobs in the army, as well as logistics is unlikely to change and in fact only strengthens the argument for a smaller combat force. Many of the skills that soldiers are being currently trained for, whether its counterinsurgency of phase zero operations or nation-building are better performed by diplomats and civilians and not the uniformed military.

[Don Bacon]

The US military in fifty years has never been used as counterinsurgents but as insurgents, that is in overthrowing established governments and then as unwanted occupation forces.

[JDB]

I'm sorry, Michael, but there are just fundamental flaws in the assumptions of your piece. Before I discuss numbers, your conclusion that "the Air Force took the lead, with far more positive results" in Gulf War I, the Kosovo campaign and the OEF/ISAF in Afghanistan. For starters, the use of air support is just that: support to ground forces.

While there is much talk about the "air war" of Desert Storm, that alone did not eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was the effort of several Army divisions -- units that did in fact engage in combat and did incur casualties -- that actually defeated the Iraqis. The Iraqi army didn't surrender to a passing A-10, did it?

In Kosovo, it's convenient to omit the fact that the U.S. Air Force was effectively the close air support for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The Air Force and Navy aircraft took out key Serb artillery and armor units that enabled the light infantry KLA to make the gains it made in the quick time it did in April - May 1999.

Finally, having been to Afghanistan, what struck me most was how capable U.S. ground forces are, in any clime and place, throughout the country. Contrast that with aircraft, which can be severely curtailed in use depending on the weather (as in winter right now). Ironically, it has been the overreliance use of larger ordinance from higher altitude CAS instead of "only" artillery support that has resulted in the reports of civilian casualties that critics of the Afghanistan simultaneously decry.

Bottom line, no objective is taken until you have a 19-year old rifleman standing on it. No amount of bombing will change that fact.

Don, I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong on the facts. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a counterinsurgency mission: maintain the status quo of a divided Vietnam (a la Korea) by defeating North Vietnamese invasion and a popular uprising sponsored and supported by the NVA. You can look at Special Forces missions that take place today in Latin America (Colombia and Venezuela immediately come to mind) to defeat leftist insurgents (FARC) and narcoterrorists. There is nothing that air power can do in these missions except provide resupply.

Michael, you wrote that "while other methods would seem more appropriate in dealing with . . . threats does the New York Times really believe that the country is ready for another massive deployment of U.S. troops?" and "Unless the U.S is prepared to once again send 250,000 troops into harm's way then there is little necessity for building a ground force of 750,000 troops." I think, again, your analysis assumes that 1) all U.S. Army and Marine personnel are interchangeable (why else focus on the simple number of people in uniform versus what they actually do?) and 2) that in a crisis it will be possible to just raise an army as time before.

For good and for ill, we have a standing, professional army: better educated, trained, equipped and experienced than any other in the world. A lot of that training and experience comes from years of soldiers and marines doing their respective jobs; it cannot be learned or relearned overnight just because the country demands it. In short, as we learned to our detriment with the massive downsizing of the military following WWI and WWII (I won't include the Cold War because the culture and nature of the military had changed considerably since in the 1990s and was similar to today's professional military), by the time you realize that you need more forces, it's already too late.

We currently have 140,000 troops in Iraq alone. Those forces forward deployed are made up of National Guardsmen, Reservists, as well as active component personnel. You need a large pool of personnel to maintain that manning in theater, have enough troops training to prepare for that mission, and allow those who have returned to rest, reset, and retrain before they return or are sent for other contingency missions.

Right now, there is a debate at the Pentagon and throughout the national security community about where the lion's share of DoD funds should go. Resetting and replacing current equipment (including aircraft) worn down by OIF/OEF deployments? Providing better services to those in uniform and their families? Continuing investment into R&D for the latest futuristic weapons?

As economic realities hit home at DoD as well as the rest of the government, I believe that the choice is clear that the high-cost, high-maintenance, high-end Navy and Air Force systems will have to give way to providing the best equipment and training to those who are directly in harm's way and face the real prospect for future contingencies.

Finally, it is the mission of DoD to be prepared to respond to the Nation's security requirements when they are asked; not to begin preparing for those threats and contingencies only after asked. I know that President Obama and his cabinet understand the need for full-spectrum military options regardless of current commitments. Nothing provides this better than the Army and Marine Corps. The Air Force and Navy will continue to be good for rides and for providing support.

[Don Bacon]

JDB,
The ground adventures that you seem to favor would not be possible w/o command of the sea and air, which is why the US invariably picks on small countries with neither, which in turn proves the point.

As far as "it is the mission of DoD to be prepared to respond to the Nation's security requirements when they are asked," except for the occasional full-on invasion that's a joke. The Pentagon answers to no one in advancing the American Empire. Case in point: There is now a massive military building program taking place in Korea AFTER the Pentagon's decision that North Korea no longer presents a threat.

The part about "the Nation's security requirements" we won't even address in this discussion; they have proven to be bogus.

[JDB]

Don, seriously. "The Pentagon answers to no one in advancing the American Empire"? With black helicopters, no doubt.

You mistake "command of the sea and air" as an end in of itself, rather than a means to an end. I don't know what "point" that proves, or if there was a point you were making to begin with.

Sea and air forces serve as a support to the ground maneuver forces, just as intelligence, logistics, communications, etc., only serve to enable the fighter on the ground (in tanks and on foot) to seize the accomplish their mission.

Whatever your own proclivities, the fact remains that DoD answers to the President and the civilian government, not the other way around. That the current civilians in power don't agree with you with regard to "the Nation's security requirements" doesn't change this fact; it only highlights how far off the rails our civilian government has taken the military and the country. And who knows that security requirements you're talking about, friend.

I can only conclude by your ludicrous post that you have no firsthand experience in either military affairs or policymaking in general. These discussions are always very simple and black-and-white when you are on the sidelines. That is why a basic premise of Michael's post (a focus on simple numbers instead of duties and specialties) is over simplistic. Don, your silly hyperbole and over-the-top rhetoric is a poor substitute for a serious discussion.

Merry Christmas. Have a good’un.

[cheap silkroad gold]

They supply silkroad gold in low price. I usually buy
sro gold from them.
silkroad online goldThey have regualar customer service.
I like silk road gold.

[Don Bacon]

JDB,
the fact remains that DoD answers to the President

Sure, right out of Civics 101. The truth is different.

Here's SecDef Gates, Dec 14, 2008, destroying the Iraq SOFA, which Bush (w/o the Senate) negotiated with Iraq and which calls for ALL US forces to be out of Iraq in three years:

"We're going to have to be out of the cities, out of populated areas by the 30th of June. That represents a really significant change of mission. And it calls for us to have all of our combat units out by the end of 2011. . . And the president-elect, as everybody knows, has talked about 16 months, but he's also talked about the drawdowns being responsible, and he's also talked about wanting to listen and hear from commanders on the ground. . . . And I think the president-elect means exactly what he says. He wants to do it in a responsible way, a way that is safe for our soldiers and with the advice of our commanders."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4333:

I can only conclude by your ludicrous post that you have no firsthand experience in either the real world or policymaking in general. The Pentagon calls the shots, obviously.

[Sam Simple]

When the United States failed to disband it's army after WWII, it set the stage for unending war and the demise of American democracy. For the first time in our history we have a perpetual standing army that will always find "enemies" to justify it's existence, even if it means killing civilians, as we are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are no armies there.

America is finished and this article is just more evidence of that.

[Don Bacon]

Sam,
You're correct. Many people date the beginning of the National Security State to NSC-68 in 1950 and the "Soviet threat." There always has to be a threat, even if it's a fictitious guy in a cave, to justify a ground force of 800,000 or more and frequent warfare.

Actually, of course, the US is not threatened by any military force, therefore the need for that scary guy Osama bin Laden who strikes fear in the bravest of hearts, or so the story goes.

[Brandon Friedman]

I would think that our Army should at least be large enough to complete the missions with which it's presently been tasked. And it's not. So I'm not sure how we could justify not enlarging it.

As for the Air Force and the Navy, their ability to deter is fantastic. I'm impressed. Otherwise, their capabilities in asymmetrical situations are fairly limited--especially after any initial thrust. To be certain, air power doesn't represent anything close to a "scalpel." And when the Air Force and Navy do manage to hit what they're supposed to be aiming at, it's because of some guy on the ground who called in the air strike.

[Don Bacon]

Brandon,
In Iraq the problem is that the US military HAS completed the assigned mission, the replacement of an Islamic (Shi'ite) Republic closely allied with neighboring Iran, along with an autonomous Kurdish government, which are reasons why (together with keeping its bases for other reasons) the US sees a necessity to maintain a military presence in Iraq probably forever.

Afghanistan is much more complicated, considering such factors as logistics, terrain and tribal affiliations, and nobody sees any way to complete the mission there except to reinforce failure.

So these are both bogus 'requirements.'

As for the Air Force "ability to deter" exactly what have they deterred? Did they deter Hanoi from taking over all of Vietnam? Or what? You can always claim that something was 'deterred' that never was intended in the first place.

[Don Bacon]

I should have written the replacement of a secular government with an. . .

[vcgold]

The site of Vcsale is selling cheap wow gold
and cheap wow power leveling
.we also sell maple story money and maple story item in maple story and other MMO game.Look here to Buy cheap wow gold
with Fast Instant Delivery!www.vcsale.com

[warcraft gold]

I am so glad to receive some wow gold and the World of Warcraft Gold is the gift as my birthday. Some of the warcraft gold is very attractive for me that I will buy wow gold to enter into the game because the gold is the key to the net game.

[dd]

I hope i can get silkroad gold in low price,
Yesterday i bought cheap silkroad gold for my friend.

[Cheap metin2 gold]

Playing online games can make much Cheap metin2 gold. Come and have a try. You will feel a different feeling. And you can Buy metin2 gold do what you want to do in the online game.

[Replica Chloe Handbags]

hope i can get silkroad gold in low price,

[fake Bvlgari Rings]

Playing online games can make much Cheap metin2 gold. Come and have a try. You will feel a different feeling. And you can Buy metin2 gold do what you want to do in the online game.

[elen]

As big as it can be.

[lynn]

Yes, like some Asian countries.

[somman]

People do not need war，so don't need troop

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[sohbet odaları]

thank you

[replica handbags]

There is no black and white colors, such as gray and red like a timeless classic, and eventually replica handbagsbecome worse, Homme Dior, black A06 wake up call, the foreigners rouge, further improve the design of the initial sales to noble pure deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) Homme Dior, Dior men will bring clean ao in front of us the overall structure, surrounded by a black dial, simplereplica handbags and stylish design style spirit of Dior Homme.

[sesli sohbet]

Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading

[k247br]

e biodegradablechanel bags when you "stoop and scoop."
Dispose of animal waste according to the campground rules or bury it off-road.
Observe fire coguccinditions and always keep a full jug of water nearby.
Remove flammable brush near fire pits and keep campfires small.
Don't burn plastics and metalshermes.
Use non-toxic, phosphate-free, biodegradable cleaning supplies and sanitary additives.
Reduce the need louis vuitton for air-conditioning by parking in natural shade, opening windows, using awnings or portable sun shelters.
Wash air-conditionidesignerng filters when dirty, instead of buying new ones each time.
Reduce the need to turn on heat designer handbagsby parking in a sheltered spot, out of the north and west winds.

[FFXIV Gil]

Are you fighting in Final Fantasy XIV for FFXIV Gil or Final Fantasy XIV Gil?
Can you suffer yourself being called newbie in FFXIV Gil game?
Are you seeking unofficial Buy FFXIV Gil cheats or Final Fantasy XIV guides in order to make Final Fantasy XIV Gil faster?
Can you get millions of Cheap FFXIV Gil in one day?
Even if you know how to farm Buy Final Fantasy XIV Gil you have to prepare enough Final Fantasy XIV Power Leveling first to buy height class Final Fantasy XIV Items, to upgrade your Final Fantasy XIV characters.
FF14 Gil Then why not Buy FFXIV Gil from us?
In Final Fantasy XIV it's the fastest way FF14 Gil,for you to get rich. We are online 24 hours a day ready and 7 days one week to power up your FFXIV Gil accounts with FFXIV Gil. Here is the best place for the Final Fantasy XIV Online players to buy your Final Fantasy XIV Gil.
We are the professional website in FFXIV GIL sale.FFXIV GIL here,We are professional FFXIV Power Leveling online. We update price every single day to make sure we are the lowest in the market.(we don't compare price with scam sites which uses unbelievable low price to deceive.)
Our slogan:Cheapest price, Fastest delivery, Best service! Final Fantasy XIV GIL
In the 2 years we are in this field , FFXIV GILbuilt many business with tens of thousands of customers. They are very satisfied with our service.So if you want to get a log of Cheap FFXIV Gil ,no doubt ,come to our website to buy. Our customer service is ready for you on line now!(WWW,GM MMO,COM Sell FFXIV Gil)

[jhon]

Don, I think if Obama is going to tell us all to work hard to remake America, he should say just a little bit more about what we are supposed to remake it into ged language arts