"Army size"

[Witling]

I tried to see if this topic had been discussed in this forum. A search for the term "army size" did not yield any results. Hence this post.

Hear the word. The army size will be increased. I'm putting this out without a citation support so I don't think it particularly needs discussion. The question will be, does the increase in size come before or after the election?

 

[chess9]

My sources also tell me that there is a very strong push at the highest levels of the Pentagon for re-starting the draft.

Wait until that news hits the college campuses.

-Robert

 

[dahunan]

BOTH BILLS Sponsored by Democrats

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 2003


http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 89
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dahunan
BOTH BILLS Sponsored by Democrats

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 2003


http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 89
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

Yup and notice the dates on that. These bills will never make it to a full vote.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Whitling
I tried to see if this topic had been discussed in this forum. A search for the term "army size" did not yield any results. Hence this post.

Hear the word. The army size will be increased. I'm putting this out without a citation support so I don't think it particularly needs discussion. The question will be, does the increase in size come before or after the election?

Try using the words "end strength" vice size.

My sources also tell me that there is a very strong push at the highest levels of the Pentagon for re-starting the draft.

Wait until that news hits the college campuses.

-Robert

I call bullsh!t. Not only is there no call for a draft coming out of the Pentagon, Sec. Rumsfeld and Co. are trying very hard to decrease or hold end-strength numbers at current levels. That has been there plan since taking office and they are sticking to it.

BOTH BILLS Sponsored by Democrats

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.163:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 7, 2003


http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.89:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 89
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES January 7, 2003
Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

Two non-starter, class warfare bills that got buried in committee so fast the paper caught fire. If I'm not mistaken that idiot Rangel sponsored one and then proceeded to make a bigger ass of himself by proclaiming only poor people and minorities were fighting in Iraq. BTW these weren't "draft" bills they were mandatory service bills.

 

[johnjosh]

unless invading forces land on american soil we will not have a draft in this country. Any congressman/senator that votes for this will not be reelected for new term

 

[Witling]

Ultra,

"size" seems like a perfectly understandable word. What's the difference "end strength" and "size?"

EDITED: Second, I didn't mean to start a conversation about the draft (which we won't see in the U.S. under present circumstances). There are two opposing forces. One would like to characterize itself as smaller and smartr (cheaper). I think the other one could be characterized as larger. Not dumber, just larger. I think it is these larger army people who will win the argument if the present administration continues. I say this despite Rusfeld's being a "smarter, smaller" advocate.

 

[MystikMango]

We are stretched too thin militarily now, and more force reductions are in our future, including more base closures. Recruiting has increased thier acceptance protocols (ie no GEDs anymore) to decrease the numbers of recruits joining the services.

There is no need for a draft. I love Trolls.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chess9
My sources also tell me that there is a very strong push at the highest levels of the Pentagon for re-starting the draft.

Wait until that news hits the college campuses.

-Robert

I think they would have congress raise the end strength size and then do some recruiting before going to a draft.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: MystikMango
We are stretched too thin militarily now, and more force reductions are in our future, including more base closures. Recruiting has increased thier acceptance protocols (ie no GEDs anymore) to decrease the numbers of recruits joining the services. There is no need for a draft. I love Trolls.

So what is the answer?

A retreat to Isolationism?
A renewed emphasis on diplomacy, so the troops aren't needed?
A renewed emphasis on alliances and multilateral actions, so that other nations shoulder the troop requirements?

 

[johnjosh]

what is the answer? stop getting in every single country business.

 

[MystikMango]

So what is the answer?

A retreat to Isolationism?
A renewed emphasis on diplomacy, so the troops aren't needed?
A renewed emphasis on alliances and multilateral actions, so that other nations shoulder the troop requirements?

If I had to pick, I would say alliances and multilateral actions. That's just me.

In this day and age, the threats we are now facing, there is no need for a large standing force. In the 70's and 80's we "knew" who the enemy was, Big Red. That era is done and over.

Now we will see more skirmishes than all-out war. Our forces have to be able to move swiftly and strike hard. We aren't in the process of taking territory by force, so we don't require large bodies of men on the ground. Technology will fight our wars so our men and women don't have to.

The USA has a much stronger force than the military, it's called Pop Culture. Everyone wants to live the American Dream, and once other countries get a taste for it, that's all she wrote.

 

[chess9]

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if my source was right. I poo-pooed it as well at first. However, my source is quite reliable and I would be very surprised if the person is lying or exaggerating.

-Robert

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chess9
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if my source was right. I poo-pooed it as well at first. However, my source is quite reliable and I would be very surprised if the person is lying or exaggerating.

-Robert

Why dont you ask your source why they would skip raising end strength and recruiting?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Ultra,

"size" seems like a perfectly understandable word. What's the difference "end strength" and "size?"

EDITED: Second, I didn't mean to start a conversation about the draft (which we won't see in the U.S. under present circumstances). There are two opposing forces. One would like to characterize itself as smaller and smartr (cheaper). I think the other one could be characterized as larger. Not dumber, just larger. I think it is these larger army people who will win the argument if the present administration continues. I say this despite Rusfeld's being a "smarter, smaller" advocate.

Sorry if I sounded like my usual caustic self. Generally there isn't a difference however when describing the size of the .mil the "official" term is 'end strength'. I'm guessing you got much better search results when you used my term.

Charrison is right about the recruiting and end-strengh numbers. Recruiting goals were adjusted downward last year across all services. The Navy implemented several force shaping tools to maintain end-strength. Re-enlistments have been near record highs since 9/11 however first qtr. numbers this year were down 7-10%. We'll have to wait and see if this is a trend or just a correction but if the economy heats up and deployments/op tempo remains at a heavy pace the numbers are likely to continue to go down. Robert's sources notwithstanding ( I would rate my sources as both "highly placed" and "reliable". There're Chiefs everywhere. ) I hear nothing that indicates a draft is even casually being discussed.

 

[chess9]

Ultraquiet:

I raised the issue about re-enlistments being up but the response was a shoulder shrug.

I suspect that Bush is planning more ops or is worried that they will need more troops if something big happens in one of the many other hot spots. This is nothing more than speculation on my part and I was told nothing of the sort.

One of my relatives who is an E-7 in the Army has been telling me horror stories about troop shortages. He's been in Afghanistan (just rotated out) and he says it's a nightmare. They are woefully understaffed according to him.

My apologies to the Right Honorable Senior Member Whitling for straying off his intended target.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Charrison: My source is no longer here. I bumped into him this past weekend at the Disney Marathon Expo and so we had a chat over coffee and bagels. He's back in Washington, I assume. I hadn't seen him in over 10 years. (Cherry Blossom Ten Miler).

-Robert

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: chess9
My sources also tell me that there is a very strong push at the highest levels of the Pentagon for re-starting the draft.

Wait until that news hits the college campuses.

-Robert

Wow, really? How strange that congress wouldn't just increase end strength by other means (i.e. recruiting, activating the IR, stretching tenure limits for those that want to stay in) and go straight to something as unpopular as a draft...

What did your source say about those things?

[Edit] Meh. I'm not gonna edit.

Anyhow, I'll add something new by saying that "Army size" can mean a lot of things (number of regular forces, regular + currently activated reserves, number of regular + active reserve, regular + active reserve + inactive reserve, everyone on the Army payroll) whereas end strength only has one definition

 

[chess9]

Bombrman:

Well, interesting issue that, but here's one for you. Since this problem has been talked about for at least 6 months, why hasn't the Pentagon already activated the inactive reserve and or increased enlistment incentives?

-Robert

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bombrman:

Well, interesting issue that, but here's one for you. Since this problem has been talked about for at least 6 months, why hasn't the Pentagon already activated the inactive reserve and or increased enlistment incentives?

-Robert

That would imply a administrative policy committment to existing deployments.

Also, there is the thought that technology can substitute for troop strength.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bombrman:

Well, interesting issue that, but here's one for you. Since this problem has been talked about for at least 6 months, why hasn't the Pentagon already activated the inactive reserve and or increased enlistment incentives?

-Robert

Department of the Army has indeed increased some enlistment incentives for certain MOSs as well as many reenlistment incentives. As far as the other services are concerned, I don't know. Perhaps UQ can ring in some with some Navy figures.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: chess9
Bombrman:

Well, interesting issue that, but here's one for you. Since this problem has been talked about for at least 6 months, why hasn't the Pentagon already activated the inactive reserve and or increased enlistment incentives?

-Robert

But parts of the inactive reserve (those in the ready reserve but not the select reserve) have been deployed. I have no numbers offhand but I personally know of at least one member of the individual ready reserve in Afghanistan. There are about five different reserve components and only one of those--the select reserve--drill and are on active status.

On top of that, the Army did in fact start offering re-enlistment bonuses earlier this month...$10k I believe...

 

[chess9]

Bombrman:

I have two friends I train with who are both inactive reserve and both of them are worried about being called up. I have no clue why they haven't been called up since almost every Congressman who goes over to Iraq or Afghanistan comes back saying we need more troops. To my knowledge, very few inactive reserve have been called up. I may be wrong. I make frequent trips to the VA Hospital and usually spend way too much time talking with the old-timers about current issues so I'll ask the next time I go.

I have no information re sweetening the enlistment pot but it should have been done long ago since we appear to have a long term commitment in Iraq. The problem, I'm sure, is with the already swollen DOD budget and the political consequences.

I don't follow these issues at all now that my son is out of the Navy, so I admit I'm woefully ignorant. I am in favor of the draft though.

-Robert

 

[CanOWorms]

I'd support an increase in army size if that increase is in researchers, scientists, etc.

 

[CaptnKirk]

"why hasn't the Pentagon already activated the inactive reserve and or increased enlistment incentives?

-Robert"

Let me tell you a story.
A long time ago in a Vietnam far - far - away . . .

We are going into the Election Hype that is going to exacerbate everything political
and each side has to capitalize on what they have control over.

If between the present political atmosphere and Election Day 2004 it would take another
event as devastating as 9/11 was in order to enrage the country population to WANT to
go to war with another country, or to even ask for and expect a draft re-instatement to pass.

Now back to the story, After the Elections, now that's another matter.
If Bush 2 - the musical is followed by the Return of the Son of the Bush
I think that they could ram it through Congress as a 'Them Terrist's' are atill out there.
And how bout them 'Ranians ?