Romney: 100,000 new troops?

[Ret10Echo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/us/politics/11romney.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

[Sionnach]

Unless he's going to import them via the guest worker program, I don't see 100,000 young Americans getting off their collective hindquarters, putting down their PlayStations, and giving up their freedoms in defense of people they'll never know. Not the "me" generation.*

I guess this means we're going to have a clone army :D



*I'm part of the me generation

[The Reaper]

I do not think that he has a serious hope of being POTUS, so IMHO, the point is moot.

TR

[Warrior-Mentor]

I do not think that he has a serious hope of being POTUS, so IMHO, the point is moot.

TR
People didn't think Bubba from Arkansas would get elected either.

He's got a strong support net in Utah...will have to see if that net can stretch from CA to FL to ME to WA...

Unfunded mandate was the first thing to come to mind. It's wishful thinking in a naive way...like John Kerry's pledge to "double SOF"...

We need it...I hope he's got a legit plan to follow through...talk is cheap.

[x-factor]

The way I see it, if he says 100k, budgets for 75k, and actually gets 50k then we're still 50k better off.

Same thing with Kerry's "double SOF" promise. Anyone who understands SOF realizes thats a ridiculous idea (there was a great article on how absurd the recruiting numbers to do that would be), but even if it only ended up actually adding one more SF group and one more SEAL team, the country is still that much metter off.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

The way I see it, if he says 100k, budgets for 75k, and actually gets 50k then we're still 50k better off.

Same thing with Kerry's "double SOF" promise. Anyone who understands SOF realizes thats a ridiculous idea (there was a great article on how absurd the recruiting numbers to do that would be), but even if it only ended up actually adding one more SF group and one more SEAL team, the country is still that much metter off.

Numbers are meaningless without definition of the mix involved, the proper definition of national interests and a complete overhaul in the understanding of and exercise of national power in support of those correctly defined national interests. Since when has the military been the lead element in the resolution of counter-insurgency, or in keeping with the "new military doctrinal jargon of the day" irregular warfare?

[incommin]

Vietnam, build up, Mac's 100K, liberals and cowards demand pull out...

Iraq, build up or call up, call for 100K new troops, liberals and cowards demand pull out....

It seems, in simple terms, that our nation doesn't learn from history......

Jim

[x-factor]

Numbers are meaningless without definition of the mix involved, the proper definition of national interests and a complete overhaul in the understanding of and exercise of national power in support of those correctly defined national interests. Since when has the military been the lead element in the resolution of counter-insurgency, or in keeping with the "new military doctrinal jargon of the day" irregular warfare?

That more troops is not a substitute for strategic good sense and interagency cooperation I would think (hope) is a given...but I'm not sure I get your overall point. Are you saying that we don't need more ground forces or that talking force structure before grand strategy is putting the cart before the horse? Or both?

[kgoerz]

Another Presidential candidate promising he will make the Army stronger. Spend more money on the troops, not Fighter Jets. He forgot about increasing SF BY 210%. This is as common as news covering Anna Nichol Smith. But less likely to amount to anything:rolleyes:

Has anyone ever considered some type of Course. About six months long. That is mandatory to pass before running for president. Covering subjects like, U.S Military Capabilities and Task Organization, unclass version of course. U.S Military History , U.S Constitution. After all, they want to be in charge. Dick Morris said the Military Briefing for a new President is less then two hours. "Well Sir we have the Navy, they use Boats" "Over here we have the Air Force, they fly and have really fast....etc

[Gypsy]

Has anyone ever considered some type of Course. About six months long.

Good idea, and held by the QP's at PS.com. Mandatory test at the end as well. :D

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

[QUOTE=x-factor]but I'm not sure I get your overall point./QUOTE]

That's okay, as I am not really up to spending the time discussing the development of national strategy and the elements of national power and just where the military in general and SF in particular fit into the complete picture you probably should not give it another thought. Chalk it up to the musings of an old man sitting around the camp fire muttering to some of his contemporaries.

[x SF med]

[QUOTE=x-factor]but I'm not sure I get your overall point./QUOTE]

That's okay, as I am not really up to spending the time discussing the development of national strategy and the elements of national power and just where the military in general and SF in particular fit into the complete picture you probably should not give it another thought. Chalk it up to the musings of an old man sitting around the camp fire muttering to some of his contemporaries.

Vehrstehen Sie Sich, Herr Colonel. Was hat man gesagt, wenn er nicht erlebt?

[The Reaper]

Practically, the 100,000 troops can be enlisted, if the compensation is viewed as adequate, or the standards lowered enough.

By my calculations, we would not have had to raise the tour lengths in Iraq had we another 100,000 soldiers. Bear in mind that when Bush I took office, the active Army end strength stood at roughly 768,000. By the time Clinton left, it had dropped to 478,000.

More troops are expensive, as they all need housing, medical care, weapons, vehicles, retirement, etc.

TR

[Radar Rider]

"Well Sir we have the Navy, they use Boats" "Over here we have the Air Force, they fly and have really fast....etc
That forces me to recall the ridiculous Ron Silver quote from hillary's first inaugural. The Air Force did a flyover, which set him off. Then he caught himself, remarking "Hey, those are OUR planes now". :rolleyes:

[incommin]

"More troops are expensive, as they all need housing, medical care, weapons, vehicles, retirement, etc."

Which is why those on the left will not vote to increase the military.. they need the funds for their ever popular bigger government and redistribute the wealth programs.

Jim

[x-factor]

Colonel - I hope you didn't take my question as disrespect, sir. Certainly that was not my intended "tone". I'm always eager to pick the brains of the experts is all.

TR - I think the total number added is the less interesting than where and how they're added. Are we talking about bulking up existing BCTs? Adding additional BCTs? Adding them under division or as independents (like the 173rd in Vincenza)? Or raising entirely new divisions? Are they going to be traditional infantry units or are we going to try something new? With regard to SF, are we talking about filling out existing groups or adding a new one (maybe by splitting 5th into an Arab-world group and a Central Asia group)?

As for spending, there's currently a movement (started by the Heritage Foundation, but I think it also has some bipartisan support) to peg defense spending at 4% of GDP (I believe its currently at 3.8?) to allow for some consistency in long-term force planning. Here's hoping that kind of common sense prevails.

Link to the Heritage article: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/em1023.cfm

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I hope you didn't take my question as disrespect, .
l]

No, I didn't. Not sure where respect/disrespect has anything to do with opinions expressed and I am certainly not due either nor expecting or looking for either. You do not know me, nor have you ever worked with me so how would I have ever earned your respect or ire? I realize now that the brevity of my response to your post was insufficient for you to draw the full extent of my intent which is my failing in not properly understanding the target audience. This forum is for the free flow of ideas and opinions so let's forget about the rank and the sir as neither has anything to do with either. To answer your question, the military aspect of national power is just one of the four other tools in the this country's tool kit the others being economic, informational/psychological, and diplomatic. My point is that the size/type and use of the military and its application has to fit within the total scheme of whatever our national interests are which have to be properly defined by those within the executive branch/government and numbers are only appropriate when they are matched with whatever national security strategy is developed and resourced to meet those national interests and applied either in support of or are being supported by the other aspects of national power. As far as the use of military power in resolving counter-insurgencies the military is most effective when it supports the other elements and not vice versa. You cannot just throw more military might into an insurgency unless they are required to leverage the other disciplines that will remove the factors fueling the insurgency. Even then, the type and skill sets required of the military added need to be the right mix and not 100,000 steely eyed killers. You also have to look at the total military requirement world wide, SWA is not the only game in town. This is still a lot briefer than I would like but I hope it answers your question.

[x-factor]

No, I didn't. Not sure where respect/disrespect has anything to do with opinions expressed and I am certainly not due either nor expecting or looking for either. You do not know me, nor have you ever worked with me so how would I have ever earned your respect or ire? I realize now that the brevity of my response to your post was insufficient for you to draw the full extent of my intent which is my failing in not properly understanding the target audience. This forum is for the free flow of ideas and opinions so let's forget about the rank and the sir as neither has anything to do with either.

I guess I'm just antsy about being the new guy. In anycase, this post alone gives me reason to respect you. Now, back to the free flow ideas.

To answer your question, the military aspect of national power is just one of the four other tools in the this country's tool kit the others being economic, informational/psychological, and diplomatic. My point is that the size/type and use of the military and its application has to fit within the total scheme of whatever our national interests are which have to be properly defined by those within the executive branch/government and numbers are only appropriate when they are matched with whatever national security strategy is developed and resourced to meet those national interests and applied either in support of or are being supported by the other aspects of national power. As far as the use of military power in resolving counter-insurgencies the military is most effective when it supports the other elements and not vice versa. You cannot just throw more military might into an insurgency unless they are required to leverage the other disciplines that will remove the factors fueling the insurgency. Even then, the type and skill sets required of the military added need to be the right mix and not 100,000 steely eyed killers. You also have to look at the total military requirement world wide, SWA is not the only game in town. This is still a lot briefer than I would like but I hope it answers your question.

It does make your point crystal clear...and raises more questions (as any good point does).

It seems to me that what you're implying is the urge to simply add more conventional troops is mission creep on a grand strategic scale and that someone needs to slam the breaks on the whole national security picture and do a fresh, clear-eyed ends-means assessment. I would certainly agree with this. I would add incidentally that as a nation I hope we're finally far enough from the initial shock of 9-11 to think clearly about the state of the world and how to go about securing ourselves in it.

If thats true, then the question becomes who is going to be the stimulus for the much-needed national reexamination? Ideally, I would say its an issue for the whole nation to dialogue on as part of the 2008 election cycle...but given the American public's short attention span for complex issues and with politics being what they are today on both sides, I'm not sure thats realistic. And if thats not realistic, then I'm not sure what else to hope for...a single charismatic political figure (along the lines of FDR)? some kind of alliance between the national security technocrats in government (military included) and academia that can stimulate a national debate? How do you move the country towards a realistic, non-partisan discussion of security?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

It starts with a clear vision of what this nation's vision is, a concise analysis of where we are and where we want to go, what we need to get there, and how we protect what it is we want to be within the limitation of our national treasure and resources as a people and a nation. It also requires that we no longer have hypenated Americans, that we have pride in who we are as a nation, we stand tall for our values and moral compass, and define the roles and functions of who does what for and to whom for the good of the country amongst the various branches of government.

A big part of this is going to fall in your chosen profession where you and the other 16 some odd intelligence agencies accurately access the threats to our vision and goals to get there. We have to know whose interests we are going to collide with in the pursuit of ours.

As far as who is going to drive this, that is a good question. However if you need to take a test to drive a car, join the military to die for your country, or to practice any number of professions then we need to have a test for those who would be politicians to evaluate them on their loyalty/patriotism/self-lessness, and total commitment to their country and not to their personal agendas as a start. It is the civilian leadership elected by the voting public that is charged with defining our national strategy to achieve what it is we want to achieve as a country and until you have an educated and involved electorate those of us in uniform are pawns reacting to the bidding of politicians who cannot find a real job elsewhere.

[The Reaper]

In theory, the Administration's National Security Strategy should drive the DoD's National Military Strategy, and further planning for procurement, basing, and end strength should derive from that.

Realistically, that ignores Congress, which approves resources like budgets, procurement, and end strength.

Since they have discovered that this is a handy tool for lining their own pockets, gaining funding for the inevitable reelection campaign war chest, pleasing constituents, and opposing policies they disagree with, the process is less oriented towards providing what the leadership is asking for and more towards playing games, self-gratification, and enrichment.

Hence, you get plenty of money for unneeded and unrequested multi-billion dollar aircraft and ships, and at the same time, inadequate numbers of troops deploying without adequate vehicles, body armor, or even ammunition.

This has necessited a myopic "cart before the horse" strategy that since the early years of the Clinton administration, has resources driving strategy, rather than the other way around. Thus the understrength, underresourced, formerly mighty "Two Simultaneous Major Wars" force devolved to a "one major and possibly one minor contingency" based force being swamped with a single middle-level conflict viewed globally as having fully consumed our power and emboldening minor players like the Iranians and N. Koreans. Conflict with a real major power like the Chinese would make the current conflict look like a little league game.

Given that this is normally a zero-sum game, the service chiefs, combatant commanders, etc. are constantly fighting for their own service's priorities at the expense of the others. If you are a regional commander, you are going to want more of your service's resources and less of the other services.

The Army has lacked adequate representation and funding for years, and reality is finally catching up with them. Unfortunately, if you look at the various commands, you will see that the Army, which is the largest component of the Armed Forces and the one service doing most of the fighting right now, is quickly losing traditional Army joint command billets to AF and Navy officers.

Since the mid-90s, while the AF was busy living off the DS/DS legacy, developing future generations of extremely expensive air superiority aircraft to meet non-existent air threats and the Navy was building incredibly expensive submarines to attack non-existent enemy naval threats, the Army sequentially lost the three biggest ticket items that it had in the budget, improved artillery, better helicopters, etc. (which we could have used right now) as they were traded to maintain the ridiculously low end strength we entered this war with (478,000 troops). Not that the Army was blameless as they tried to structure the force and weapons systems for a conventional Fulda Gap, DS/DS, or Korean defense scenario.

Furthermore, we are five years into this war, and the Army's end strength has only been raised by a few thousand, and that ironically due to Congress, as DoD and the Executive Branch maintained that Army force levels and funding were entirely adequate. Realistic resourcing to match GWOT strategy with end strength and funding for an additional 100,000 soldiers would have kept this week's decision to extend tours in Iraq to 15 months from being necessary.

Compounding this, the Army's material resources that were programmed to last X more years before needing replacement have operated at 10-20 times their peacetime tempo and have worn out decades before the replacements are due to be fielded. The ammo stocks and war reserves that we have shot up in this conflict were already depleted from the Bush I and Clinton "peace dividends", not to mention the decisions by the current administration to try and do this on the cheap, likely costing trillions in the long term. Without adequate R&D leading to accelerated fielding and procurement of replacement systems, the Army is literally going to be back in its "Pentomic Army" state of irrelevance and disrepair of the late 50s.

The disconnect here is that we have spent hundreds of billions creating unnecessary programs, big government, and yet another open-ended entitlement of senior drug funding, while ignoring the desperate need for increased national security funding, if we are actually serious about prosecuting the GWOT. We have expended billions of dollars developing and procuring advanced aerial and naval platforms at the expense of an adequate ground force. Where is the enemy AF and Navy in this current conflict? All under a Republican executive and legislative leadership.

Here is reality. You can fly over an enemy all you want, and attempt to bomb him into the Stone Age, but if you are not willing to put boots on the ground, able and willing to use force to prosecute a campaign, and American lives at stake, you do not truly own that enemy terrotory, nor can you claim to have defeated him. You either have a force that can do that, or you do not. And most of your enemies (and friends) can see which you have.

SF is the largest component of USASOC and SOF. USASOC is the largest component of SOCOM. Yet SF receives the least funding of any of the SOCOM components. If SF really did win the initial campaign in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and is worth doubling the size of, maybe they should receive an adequate portion of the Army, SOCOM, and USASOC budgets as well, rather than almost all of the money going to black DA programs and expensive infil platforms like helicopters, Ospeys, fast boats, and mini-subs.

Now we are facing the prospect of the surrender monkeys of the party that created many of these problems (dating back to Vietnam) taking over again and driving this bus completely off the cliff. Anyone who thinks that the terrorist acts depicted on "24" are fiction is deluding themselves. It is alternative reality if the Dems take over the White House as well.

Just reality as I understand it, and not representative of anyone else's opinions or views.

Rant off.

TR

[x-factor]

It starts with a clear vision of what this nation's vision is, a concise analysis of where we are and where we want to go, what we need to get there, and how we protect what it is we want to be within the limitation of our national treasure and resources as a people and a nation.

Vision from where? We're talking about a unifying force that is nowhere to be seen on the current American political landscape. I don't want to be the stereotypical Gen-X cynic, but the sensible middle on both sides has been cut to ribbons since 9-11 (thanks both to the Roves and Pelosis of the world). I think thats whats driving all our other problems and leaving national security professionals, on your side and mine, in a lurch. I'm worried that we're waiting for a single political leader/savior that may never come.

For a while I was intrigued by the idea of a bipartisan "national security" ticket (the names floated around were McCain, Hagel, and Biden), but I don't think thats going to get off the ground. Are we going to have to do what Israel did and found a national security-centric moderate third party?

A big part of this is going to fall in your chosen profession where you and the other 16 some odd intelligence agencies accurately access the threats to our vision and goals to get there. We have to know whose interests we are going to collide with in the pursuit of ours.

This is a whole other discussion. Sometimes I worry that the GWOT is pushing the IC too far into combat support because thats where the most budget money is. Not that I don't love being out in the field with you guys and helping put terrorists in the dirt, but every minute that I'm supporting assault planning is one that I'm not searching for the next threat.

As far as who is going to drive this, that is a good question. However if you need to take a test to drive a car, join the military to die for your country, or to practice any number of professions then we need to have a test for those who would be politicians to evaluate them on their loyalty/patriotism/self-lessness, and total commitment to their country and not to their personal agendas as a start. It is the civilian leadership elected by the voting public that is charged with defining our national strategy to achieve what it is we want to achieve as a country and until you have an educated and involved electorate those of us in uniform are pawns reacting to the bidding of politicians who cannot find a real job elsewhere.

Traditionally its been the role of journalists to serve the public by asking the intelligent questions to hold politicians publically accountable (particularly on national security), but where is that American tradition going? Tough questions have given way to cheap shots and/or partisan fluff.

The Roman senate argued for something like 48 hours straight about invading Egypt...but Congressional arguments and Presidential debates these days are glorified joint press conferences.

Now I'm just bitching...maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees and technology (like this message board) will reinvigorate the national debate and be the new means to hold leadership accountable? I hope so.

Reaper - I couldn't agree with you more on the complete backwardness of procurement. Let me ask you (or anyone else who wants to comment) this, how big should USASOC be? Or more broadly, is there a historical model we should be looking to?

[Radar Rider]

If SF really did win the initial campaign in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq, and is worth doubling the size of, maybe they should receive an adequate portion of ther Army, SOCOM, and USASOC budgets as well, rather than almost all of the money going to black DA programs and expensive infil platforms like helicopters, Ospeys, fast boats, and mini-subs.TR

Don't forget Sir, it isn't just mini-subs, either. The Navy wanted to save it's boomers by converting some to infiltration launch platforms, as well.

[The Reaper]

Reaper - I couldn't agree with you more on the complete backwardness of procurement. Let me ask you (or anyone else who wants to comment) this, how big should USASOC be?

As with my previous examples, shouldn't we first define what we want it to do before determining its structure and end strength?

Should it have a deployable "flyaway" component for C2, since the SFOBs and SF Groups seem to become defacto ARSOF component commands or CJSOTFs without the requisite staffing or augmentation? Since none of the other services or components even seem to have anything approaching the C3I capability of the Group, maybe we shou;ld determine where the resources rto create the CJSOTF or ARSOTF HQs could come from.

An intelligent review might also examine the shadow JTFs and forward HQs created by JSOC and their components to stovepipe their operations and access to resources to the detriment of the rest of the forward deployed SOF elements. How should that HQs get its resources and derive command relationships as well as responsibility?

In that case, now that SOCOM is a warfighter and owns USASOC, as well as the other service components, should they not also undergo a ground up review of leadership, resources, and structure?

TR

[x-factor]

DoD: Force Planning Built For Irregular, Lengthy Conflicts
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2680698&C=america

[Ret10Echo]

This is who the folks on the hill are listening to right now. By the way the link provides access to the complete testimony of each member of the panel.

Interesting that Krepinevich stated:...Take a “sizable number” of the current Army brigade structure and create irregular warfare units capable of counterinsurgency and humanitarian operations....Create an “advisor Corps"

Four of the nation’s top military strategists told Congress this week what modernization plans they’d scrap and how they’d change military priorities.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003444.html

[SOCOM8721]

100,000 or 50,000...

We all know we need the numbers to increase. We need a LEADER in the next president that will stand up to the political BS and keep support behind the troops.

Our choices are wide and my heart and gut has not given me the warm fuzzy feeling about anyone yet. I hope that I am not alone in this.

Those of us who travel outside CONUS on a regular basis know the general concensus of feelings towards the US worldwide. This includes all of our allied countries. It is not generally nice. Though they all want our help when they get into a fix.

Just as we are all talking about the VT shootings and what should have been done and the warning signs and what the little prick kept telling everyone...

The same thing is happening with AQ and other terrorist orgs around the world. These are not the idle threats of a demented child but of dedicated, jealous and dissolussioned religious paramilitary terrorists groups. I would rather keep the fight on their earth than here on mine.

If the man will increase the numbers and the money and that is what he wants to do he is worth looking at in my book.

I am not one to look at ones religous affiliations, but I had several mormon soldiers in my command and worked under two different mormon commanders. They were hard chargers, got the job done and I could trust what they said without any second thoughts. Good leaders, followers and very loyal to the end. They remain great friends to this day and keep in touch with me regularly. I cannot say as much for myself. (about keeping in touch regularly)

I also had some "jack" mormons that were not worth spit. But they did not practice their religion and therefore it showed in their values and actions.

But, the ones that were practicing their faith and lifestyle were stand up...

If this guy (Romney) can keep the folks that have their heads up their 4th POC and only have the personal (me, me, me) agendas and not the country's best interests at heart from getting elected. I am one US citizen that is glad that he is in the mix.

On a side note...

I read a book about a mormon, Porter Rockwell. He was supposedly the body guard of the early prophets of the mormon church. It is an interesting read. He was probably the best tracker and gun hand (and one of the most if not the most feared men) in the west. He was able to live among and work with the American Indian tribes and the trusted him implicitly. Sounds like an SF man to me.

The book, Dewey, Richard Lloyd Dewey. Porter Rockwell: A Biography. Paramount Books, 1986, Hardcover: 2nd edition, 1988, is a good read.

"Porter Rockwell was that most terrible instrument that can be handled by fanaticism; a powerful physical nature welded to a mind of very narrow perceptions, intense convictions, and changeless tenacity. In his build he was a gladiator; in his humor a Yankee lumberman; in his memory a Bourbon; in his vengeance an Indian. A strange mixture, only to be found on the American continent."
—Fitz Hugh Ludlow, 1870.

If a mormon fights like this...I would not hesitate to have him fighting next to me...If Romney has a fire in his belly like Porter Rockwell... WELL THAT MIGHT JUST BE WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS!

My religious affiliation - Jewish ( just in case you were wondering)...

[Sionnach]

REF: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003444.html

Need to focus on officer and NCO education by creating a “soldier sabbatical” program that allows them to take time off from the service to go to graduate schools and study “alien cultures and the art of warfare.”

Properly managed, this could be an an excellent program. I had some sharp team and squad leaders that could have greatly benefitted from a program like this. Will conventional O's go for it?


Believes foreign language training is so important that the military should pick out service members “by threes and say ‘you’re going to 90 days of language training.’ ”

Again, properly managed, it could be an excellant program. Create some kind of "proficiency bonus" to maintain some proficiency in your language based on your fluency in the language. It also needs to incorporate cultural information. Knowing a language without knowing the main cultural nuances would not be as affective.

[Ret10Echo]

Properly managed, this could be an an excellent program. I had some sharp team and squad leaders that could have greatly benefitted from a program like this. Will conventional O's go for it?


Again, properly managed, it could be an excellant program. Create some kind of "proficiency bonus" to maintain some proficiency in your language based on your skill.

Foreign Language Pay (FLP) currently existst based on the language category and the proficiency rating. Understand that this requires a large investment of time. I spent 6 months in language school (no other training requirements) that included cultural awareness. Then I lived in the country for 30 days and that put me at a point where I could manage at a grade-school level in general conversation and significantly better from an operational level (functional language training)

[SOCOM8721]

Foreign Language Pay (FLP) currently existst based on the language category and the proficiency rating. Understand that this requires a large investment of time. I spent 6 months in language school (no other training requirements) that included cultural awareness. Then I lived in the country for 30 days and that put me at a point where I could manage at a grade-school level in general conversation and significantly better from an operational level (functional language training)


Six months to 2 years of total immersion in the country is the only way one becomes proficient by any means. Yes it is expensive but that is what it takes. The only other way for this to work is to build mini villages here and perform the immersion on a daily basis for six months to a year. Eat, sleep, breath it all 24/7. The personnel and costs would be incredible. So, in country immersion is the most cost effective way.