U.S. Army Plans Four-Year Boost of 30,000 Forces

[charrison]

linkage

Strained by operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), the U.S. Army will boost its forces by 30,000 through emergency authority it expects to last four years, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker told Congress on Wednesday.



But Schoomaker, testifying to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, rejected calls from lawmakers for a permanent increase in forces, saying it would undermine efforts to streamline and modernize the Army.


"Right now, I've been given the authority by the secretary of defense to grow the Army by 30,000 people ... under emergency powers," Schoomaker said. He said the authority from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was to last for four years.


The Army is already about 11,000 soldiers over the 482,000 troop limit authorized by Congress under the emergency provision the Pentagon (news - web sites) invoked, largely through "stop-loss" orders that block soldiers from leaving or retiring and through re-enlistment incentives.


Schoomaker told reporters after the hearing the Army would move quickly to add nearly 20,000 more forces, saying, "We want to achieve it as quickly as we can."

 

[Witling]

Yeah, I remember this part. "With just a few more men (and these days women too), we can make this work. Yeah, and water will stay at the top of a hill too.

 

[burnedout]

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: burnedout

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

Yes it did and we drew down way too fast/ the optempo never decreased/ the economy heated up and people bailed by the boatloads.

BTW this increase in the Army is getting paid for by a decrease in the Navy. We have targeted drawdown numbers of 9K a year for the next four years.

. . . and no, there won't be a draft.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

Yes it did and we drew down way too fast/ the optempo never decreased/ the economy heated up and people bailed by the boatloads.

BTW this increase in the Army is getting paid for by a decrease in the Navy. We have targeted drawdown numbers of 9K a year for the next four years.

. . . and no, there won't be a draft.

No draft yet. It all depends on how recruitment goes, and that depends in a large way what happens in the Middle East.

I think it unlikely, but could it happen in 5 or more years? Sure, if troop levels slide downward enough.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

Yes it did and we drew down way too fast/ the optempo never decreased/ the economy heated up and people bailed by the boatloads.

BTW this increase in the Army is getting paid for by a decrease in the Navy. We have targeted drawdown numbers of 9K a year for the next four years.

. . . and no, there won't be a draft.

Oh, I agree. There were times from 96-99 when we often wondered where the next "newbies" or "cherries" would come from. We also wondered if we would ever go home to see the old lady.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

Yes it did and we drew down way too fast/ the optempo never decreased/ the economy heated up and people bailed by the boatloads.

BTW this increase in the Army is getting paid for by a decrease in the Navy. We have targeted drawdown numbers of 9K a year for the next four years.

. . . and no, there won't be a draft.

No draft yet. It all depends on how recruitment goes, and that depends in a large way what happens in the Middle East.

I think it unlikely, but could it happen in 5 or more years? Sure, if troop levels slide downward enough.

rofl. your statement is rather...uh...silly IMO. if troop levels fall downward enough to where we have a skeleton of an army, id hope they'd institute a draft! we have to have a standing army to protect our country. if our enemies precieve us to be weak [and see that we dont have a large army anymore] whats to stop them from attempting an invasion?

 

[Witling]

" There were times from 96-99 when we often wondered where the next "newbies" or "cherries" would come from. " 96-99, I gather we're talking about recruiting in general, not some duty station.

Ultra, I think the navy can probably profit by the reduction. I was an FT. The stuff I did is better done by machines now.

 

[Dissipate]

Heh, what if they can't recruit enough people? I for one will not join unless I'm drafted. I'm not the military type.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Whitling
" There were times from 96-99 when we often wondered where the next "newbies" or "cherries" would come from. " 96-99, I gather we're talking about recruiting in general, not some duty station.

No, while I was an NCO at a unit. We had some serious manpower shortages during that period. I was already long out of recruiting by then although I'd heard applicants were hard to come by out there on the street for recruiters at that time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: burnedout

482,000 troop limit

We ran about 780K up until 1992. Then early outs/VSI/SSB/reduced recruiting/early retirements became the norm.

Yes it did and we drew down way too fast/ the optempo never decreased/ the economy heated up and people bailed by the boatloads.

BTW this increase in the Army is getting paid for by a decrease in the Navy. We have targeted drawdown numbers of 9K a year for the next four years.

. . . and no, there won't be a draft.

No draft yet. It all depends on how recruitment goes, and that depends in a large way what happens in the Middle East.

I think it unlikely, but could it happen in 5 or more years? Sure, if troop levels slide downward enough.

rofl. your statement is rather...uh...silly IMO. if troop levels fall downward enough to where we have a skeleton of an army, id hope they'd institute a draft! we have to have a standing army to protect our country. if our enemies precieve us to be weak [and see that we dont have a large army anymore] whats to stop them from attempting an invasion?

If you had read in context, you would have understood that I was amplifying on UQ's comments, not agreeing or disagreeing. If he had thought so, he could have made a comeback. He is quite able to defend his position.

Silly? Obvious perhaps, but if you think a draft is a silly thing, or the prospects of it are, then you haven't been around very long. Perhaps it is best to try and understand cause and effect, and be alert to changes before drastic steps are needed.

 

[Sahakiel]

Personally, I think a draft would be better. That, and a large increase in military spending.
Why? You need look no farther than Iraq. A lot of the problems over there with security have to do with lack of personnel. A large reason why Afghanistan is still in the pithole has to do with lack of personnel and funding. Around the world, U.S. forces are deployed piecemeal.
In other words, if you want to police the world, you better have the firepower to do it. The U.S. military has the firepower to deal with every conflict on a one to one basis. All of them at once requires more personnel. It's like trying to protect fifty flags with fifty units in fifty different areas wide apart against a thousand units. It's only a matter of time.

The only other option is to reduce the number of regions to which soldiers are deployed. However, that seems unpopular with U.S. voters.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Sahakiel
Personally, I think a draft would be better. That, and a large increase in military spending.
Why? You need look no farther than Iraq. A lot of the problems over there with security have to do with lack of personnel. A large reason why Afghanistan is still in the pithole has to do with lack of personnel and funding. Around the world, U.S. forces are deployed piecemeal.
In other words, if you want to police the world, you better have the firepower to do it. The U.S. military has the firepower to deal with every conflict on a one to one basis. All of them at once requires more personnel. It's like trying to protect fifty flags with fifty units in fifty different areas wide apart against a thousand units. It's only a matter of time.

The only other option is to reduce the number of regions to which soldiers are deployed. However, that seems unpopular with U.S. voters.

What the hell is up with all this talk about the draft? The draft should only be incurred when the U.S. is engaged in a MAJOR conflict. Why should thousands of men who want nothing to do with the military be forced to serve? Its time out of their lives. And don't tell me my view is unpatriotic, it isn't. My view is merely practical. Furthermore, a draft would seriously damage the economy because A. It would rip men who are working right out of their jobs hurting companies. B. It would disrupt (possibly permanently) men's education.

If the government wants more men it should increase military benefits.