What’s The Right Size For The U.S. Army?

   

With the U.S. military out of Iraq and winding down in Afghanistan, the U.S. Army, which peaked with a force of around 570,000 a few years ago, was supposed to drop to around 490,000 troops.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that’s still too big.

“An Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy,” Hagel told a news conference in February.

Translation? Hagel isn’t planning to occupy any countries. So he wants to cut the Army to about 450,000.

But that’s a number that some generals say places the country at greater risk.

And the Army could shrink even more. Remember the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration? If they go into effect, the Army could drop an additional 30,000 troops.

Rep. Buck McKeon, a California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, seized on the numbers last month when he questioned the Army’s top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno.

“If it’s a fairly high risk at the 450,000 level, what level of risk do you assume at the 420,000?” McKeon asked.

“I’m very concerned,” Odierno responded. “I doubt whether we could even execute one prolonged multiphased operation,” which is military speak for something like a war on the Korean peninsula.

Little Support For ‘Leaner And Meaner’

Yet some, like Doug Macgregor, a retired Army colonel and combat veteran, argue that an Army at that size would be just fine — maybe even better.

“I could give you an Army at 420,000 that has far more fighting power in it, more deployable capability, than what you have today,” he says. “It’s a function of how you organize.”

Macgregor’s plan includes cutting staff and the number of generals, creating highly trained, fast-moving units, shedding Army artillery and using the firepower of the Navy and Air Force instead in the event of war.

“The United States Army remains a 1942 construct that expects lots of warning before it actually slowly organizes and equips to deploy,” he says.

Macgregor’s plan showed promise in Army war games, he says, but the Army leadership is resistant to making any changes.

“The Army doesn’t want to shrink,” says Gordon Adams, who worked on Pentagon budgets under President Bill Clinton. “The Army doesn’t want to lose the segment of the defense budget it’s had.”

Adams says the Army has often cut back when wars end, including World War II and the Korean War, for example.

“And it made sense — it wasn’t a mistake — because the ground force is the thing you can most easily regenerate,” he says. “It’s really hard to regenerate a pilot.”

The Risk Of Too Much Reduction

Adams says Army war planners could make better use of National Guard and Reserve units, which deployed in large numbers to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“So the Guard and Reserve we have today is a truly ready Guard and Reserve, not a Guard and Reserve that’s waiting to be called up and trying to figure out how to find its way to the battle station,” he says.

But senior Army leaders say those part-time soldiers can’t deploy immediately in a crisis, and it would take months to train them. Adams says Capitol Hill often bows to the wishes of the generals.

“They are not asking the hard questions. They are mostly advocates for a higher budget,” he says of Congress. “You’re not going to get the analytics out of the Armed Services Committee that you would hope to.”

But defense analyst Dan Goure says the analysis has been done — by the Army, the Pentagon and think tanks. He agrees with the generals: An Army that’s too small won’t be able to fight and win wars, and could embolden foreign leaders. A case in point: Russia’s recent takeover of Crimea.

“Other countries, adversaries may be tempted, as we’ve seen recently, to use their military power to try and seize territory,” Goure says.

That’s a result of the U.S. — as well as its allies — cutting ground forces.

Goure says the U.S. now has the only large, capable Army in the Western world.

And he thinks the generals are too willing to accept cuts. His optimal number? An Army with 600,000 soldiers.

Related Posts

The Unmatched Ground Stomp of the Champion

Th𝚎 A-26 Inv𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚛, which 𝚍𝚎𝚋𝚞t𝚎𝚍 in J𝚞l𝚢 1942, 𝚛𝚎𝚙l𝚊c𝚎𝚍 th𝚎 D𝚘𝚞𝚐l𝚊s A-20 һаⱱ𝚘с, 𝚊 𝚙l𝚊n𝚎 with simil𝚊𝚛 𝚛𝚘l𝚎s 𝚊n𝚍 𝚍𝚎si𝚐ns. Th𝚎 D𝚘𝚞𝚐l𝚊s A-26 Ь𝚘mЬ𝚎г, nickn𝚊m𝚎𝚍 th𝚎 B-26,…

Russia Delivers Modern Yak-130 Trainer Jets to Iran

The receпt arrival of Yak-130 “Mitteп” traiпer jets iп Iraп sigпals a growiпg military partпership betweeп Moscow aпd Tehraп, with arms trades playiпg a sigпificaпt role. Accordiпg…

Presenting the Dutch Military’s Most Recent Light Military Vehicle, the DMV4x4 AnacondaSOF DEF

In a remarkable move to expand the horizons of their Military Utility Vehicle (MUV) family, Dutch Military Vehicle has joined forces with IDV and DMV to unveil…

The first multi-story A-10 Thunderbolt II assault aircraft sets out for the Middle East, supporting F-15E and F-16 fighters.

Αt tһe end of Mагсһ, we wгote tһаt tһe UՏ Αіг Foгсe woᴜɩd ѕend Α-10 TһᴜndeгЬoɩt II аttасk аігсгаft to tһe Mіddɩe Eаѕt. Tһe fігѕt аігсгаft һаѕ аɩгeаdу аггіⱱed…

The MD-160 and Other Unreal Aircraft: Their Startling Reality

Amoпg the myriad of airplaпes that defy coпʋeпtioпal expectatioпs aпd seem almost sυrreal iп their desigп aпd capaƄilities, oпe aircraft staпds oυt as particυlarly remarkaƄle: the MD-160….

Attack helicopters present a dangerous threat that emphasizes the power seen in military conflicts.

Th𝚎 𝚙𝚛𝚎s𝚎nc𝚎 𝚘𝚏 𝚊tt𝚊ck h𝚎lic𝚘𝚙t𝚎𝚛s 𝚘n th𝚎 Ƅ𝚊ttl𝚎𝚏i𝚎l𝚍 s𝚎𝚛ʋ𝚎s 𝚊s 𝚊 𝚙𝚘w𝚎𝚛𝚏𝚞l t𝚎st𝚊m𝚎nt t𝚘 th𝚎 imm𝚎ns𝚎 mi𝚐ht 𝚎xhiƄit𝚎𝚍 in w𝚊𝚛𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚎. In th𝚎 c𝚘m𝚙l𝚎x 𝚊n𝚍 𝚎ʋ𝚎𝚛-𝚎ʋ𝚘lʋin𝚐 l𝚊n𝚍sc𝚊𝚙𝚎 𝚘𝚏…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *