COUNTERING MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Articles: Military Recruiting: General
President Wants to Increase Size of Armed Forces
THOM SHANKER and JIM RUTENBERG , New York Times
Dec. 19, 2006
President
Bush said Tuesday that the United States should expand the size of its
armed forces, acknowledging that the military had been strained by the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what
he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism.
“I’m inclined to believe it’s important and necessary
to do,” Mr. Bush said. He said this was an “accurate
reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last
for a while, and that we’re going to need a military that’s
capable of being able to sustain our efforts and help us achieve
peace.”
Speaking in an interview with The Washington Post, Mr. Bush did not
specify how large an increase he was contemplating or put a dollar
figure on the cost. He said that he had asked his new defense
secretary, Robert M. Gates, to bring him a proposal, and that the
budget he unveils at the beginning of February would seek approval for
the plan from Congress, where many members of both parties have been
urging an increase in the military’s size.
In interviews on Tuesday, administration officials said the president
was speaking generally about the broader campaign against terrorism and
was not foreshadowing a decision on whether to send additional troops
into Iraq in coming months in an effort to stabilize Baghdad. Any big
change in the size of the American military would take years to
accomplish.
Mr. Bush told The Post, which excerpted the interview Tuesday on its
Web site, that he had not made a decision about sending more troops to
Iraq.
Coming the day after Mr. Gates was sworn in as defense secretary, Mr.
Bush’s comments indicated that the administration was breaking
abruptly with the stance taken by Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former
Pentagon chief, who championed the view that better intelligence and
technological advancements could substitute for a bigger military.
Mr. Bush said his plan would focus on ground forces rather than on the
Navy and the Air Force, telling The Post, “I’m inclined to
believe that we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the
Marines.” There are about 507,000 active-duty Army soldiers and
180,000 active-duty marines.
Mr. Bush’s comments were his most direct assessment that the
armed forces were facing strain so serious that the nation should
invest billions of dollars in expanding the military. The president has
come under increasing pressure from allies and critics, including
Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and former Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell, who have warned that the Army could break under the
stress of the demands it faces.
“I also believe that the suggestions I’ve heard from
outside our government, plus people inside the government —
particularly the Pentagon — that we need to think about
increasing our force structure makes sense, and I will work with
Secretary Gates to do so,” Mr. Bush said.
Congress authorized a 30,000-soldier increase in the active-duty Army
after the Sept. 11 attacks — when the Army stood at about 484,000
— in what was described as a temporary measure. Army officials
say they hope to reach that authorized total troop strength of 514,000
by next year and would like to make that a permanent floor, not a
ceiling.
To that end, the Army already has drawn up proposals to grow to up to
540,000, with some retired officers advocating an even larger increase.
The active-duty Army peaked at 1.6 million troops during the Korean
conflict and stood at just below that figure during the war in Vietnam,
before hovering around 800,000 for much of the 1970s and 1980s,
according to Pentagon statistics. Following the first Persian Gulf war,
which coincided with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the
Army’s active-duty force dropped first to below 600,000 and then
below 500,000 before the increases ordered after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Any decision to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps
would do little to meet the need for more troops should Mr. Bush order
a significant increase of American forces in Iraq in 2007, as it takes
considerable time to recruit, train and deploy new troops. Gen. Peter
J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said last week that the Army
could probably grow by only 6,000 to 7,000 soldiers per year.
Army officials have estimated that for each addition of 10,000 soldiers to the force, it would cost about $1.2 billion.
While it is not likely to determine the administration’s decision
about a short-term increase in troop levels in Iraq, a substantial
increase in the size of the American military could give the United
States more flexibility in setting and maintaining troop levels there
over the long run. Army officials had already drawn up proposals for
sustaining the Iraq and Afghanistan missions by drawing heavily on the
National Guard and Reserves over the next several years.
But the prospect of mobilizing large numbers of those part-time
soldiers would present Mr. Bush with a hugely vexing political problem
as the Republican Party prepares for a campaign to hold the White House
in 2008. The administration has promised to limit overseas deployments
for the Guard and the Reserve, which have been used extensively since
the Sept. 11 attacks.
Pentagon and military officials who were briefed on the
president’s discussions with the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week
said that the classified briefing ranged broader than just how to win
in Iraq.
The chiefs argued that the nation must not let the military’s
other capabilities lapse from commitments of personnel, equipment and
money for Iraq, these officials said.
In particular, the chiefs expressed concerns that the United States
must show enough strength to deter potential adversaries from
aggressive moves based on an assumption that American power was bogged
down in Iraq. That led to a discussion on the merits of expanding the
military, officials said.
The president’s statements were applauded by leading members of
Congress who specialize in military affairs. Loren Dealy, spokeswoman
for Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee, said that
Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, who will become chairman of the
panel in the new Congress, said after Mr. Bush spoke that “Mr.
Skelton has long supported the idea of increasing the end strength in
both the Army and the Marine Corps.
“He still supports a proposal for that increase,” Ms. Dealy
said by telephone late Tuesday, “regardless of where and who it
comes from. He is happy that this is being taken seriously.”
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, said Tuesday night: “I am pleased President Bush has
finally recognized the need to increase the overall size of our
military. I have been calling for such an expansion for several
years.” But Mr. Reed, who served in the 82nd Airborne Division,
warned that the battle over troop numbers was not over.
“Now that the president is asking for an increase, he needs to
follow through and put the money in the budget to pay for these
soldiers,” Mr. Reed said. “It is imperative that this
administration step up and honestly budget for the long-term commitment
they have made in Iraq. If the president doesn’t put forward a
plan to pay for this in his annual budget request then this
announcement is meaningless.”
This archive consists of a topically organized selection of
articles culled by members of the Counter-Recruitment List Serve from printed
publications and web sites. The archive is not complete. We have chosen
material relevant to the work of