The Army Will Increase Its Size by 22,000

I think we would call this throwing good money after bad. A million other ways to spend it, but this is what the establishment chooses.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Iraq. Photo: Michael Kamber.

Gates announces temporary increase in U.S. Army
By David Morgan / July 20, 2009

WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday announced a temporary increase in the size of the U.S. Army that would boost the force by up to 22,000 troops for three years.

He told reporters at a news briefing that the increase, intended to cope with strains from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would raise the total strength of the Army to 569,000 soldiers.

“The Army faces a period where its ability to deploy combat units at acceptable fill rates is at risk,” Gates told reporters. “This is a temporary challenge which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course of the next three years.”

The increase is smaller than a plan backed by Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have added about 30,000 troops to active duty.

The expansion was recommended by the Army’s civilian and uniformed leadership and strongly backed by President Barack Obama, Gates said.

The Pentagon plans to absorb an initial expansion cost of $1.1 billion through fiscal year 2010, which begins October 1, without additional funding from Congress. But Gates suggested more funds could be necessary in fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

“These additional forces will be used to ensure that our deploying units are properly manned and not to create new combat formations,” he said.

Gates authorized a permanent increase in U.S. Army strength soon after he became defense secretary in 2006, believing the largest branch of the U.S. military did not have enough forces to support heightened operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That increase, which was recently completed, boosted the Army’s size by 65,000 soldiers to 547,000. It also added 27,000 Marines to the U.S. Marine Corps.

MORE ‘DWELL TIME’

Gates’ decision to authorize a temporary increase comes as the U.S. military shifts its focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the number of U.S. troops is expected to reach 68,000 this year from about 32,000 at the end of 2008.

There are currently about 58,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and 130,000 in Iraq.

U.S. plans in Iraq call for a force reduction to between 35,000 and 50,000 troops by August 2010 and a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011.

But Gates said the ongoing pace of Army operations, combined with changes in personnel policy, required a bigger force.

“The persistent pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last several years has steadily increased the number of troops not available for deployment in the Army,” he said.

The U.S. defense chief told soldiers at Fort Drum in upstate New York last week that a temporary increase in the force’s size would help expand the period of time soldiers spend at home between deployments, known in military parlance as “dwell time.”

Longer dwell time is seen as vital to maintaining the morale of service members.

U.S. Army soldiers currently receive 12 months of dwell time after each 12-month deployment and Army officials want to extend that to two years.

The Army could move to 15 to 18 months of dwell time by mid-2010 when the Pentagon would withdraw an additional five or six combat brigades from Iraq.

Source / Reuters

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

This entry was posted in RagBlog and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to The Army Will Increase Its Size by 22,000

  1. masterspork says:

    We are are war so what is that a surprise? Also by having more people it would allow those who have deployed to stay home longer. Also it would reduce the number of people that are affected by stop loss.

  2. So intead of being ‘We Are the World’, we should write a song called “We are the War”????

    Two illegal wars, and still we remain silent? Two illegal wars and we don’t have the back-bone and guts of the Iranians to protest and end this travisity?

    We are the USA, and we do what the boss man say….
    We are the pawns and the knaves
    We are the beguiled who don’t see we are slaves
    to an illusion; given up to the delusion
    that the infusion of more bodies
    will bode well
    who will die for those who make hell
    and plug the gap – what a sap
    Sad Sack, did you know that no one has your back
    Front the conflict; be the convict
    who’s let loose on a nation
    to minimize inflation
    to glorify a flag
    that has started to sag
    under the weight
    of those prospering from hate
    Criminal me not, when we’ve been succcessfully bought
    with the ration of a nation
    who is successfully bought!

    We don’t stop the loss; we don’t win any prize, when the death of our youth, is democracy in disguise.

    Thank you Richard, for putting this information up for your readers to see and evaluate. Diane

  3. I guess one should never react to a commentary on a post; spit out a bit of rhyme without taking the time to re-read, and edit and for that error, I take credit. – Diane

    We are the USA, and we do what the boss man say….
    We are the pawns and the knaves
    We are the beguiled who don’t see we are slaves
    To an illusion; given up to the delusion
    That the infusion of more bodies
    Will bode well
    Who will die for those who make hell
    And plug the gap – what a sap
    Sad Sack, did you know that no one has your back
    Front the conflict; be the convict
    who’s let loose on a nation
    To minimize inflation
    To glorify a flag
    That has started to sag
    Under the weight
    Of those prospering from hate
    Criminal me not, when we’ve been emotional distaught
    With the ration of a nation
    Who has blindly sold out, and successfully bought!
    We don’t stop the loss; we don’t win any prize,
    When the death of our youth, is democracy in disguise.

  4. masterspork says:

    “Two illegal wars, and still we remain silent? Two illegal wars and we don’t have the back-bone and guts of the Iranians to protest and end this transitivity?”

    Care to prove how they are illegal?

    I ask again how do you judge our actions that in a place that you have not seen or been too?

    http://www.armystrongstories.com/blogger/warren-andrews/out-and-about/

    http://www.armystrongstories.com/blogger/warren-andrews/hearts-and-minds/

  5. Steve Russell says:

    There is nothing illegal about Afghanistan, but I smell the mission creep that will make it beaucoups stupid.

    However, the Iraq war was illegal from the get-go.

    Prove it? Sure thing.

    The first premise is that all war is illegal, so you misplace the burden. It is the burden of the person supporting war to show it is legal–not the other way around.

    The first way to make a war legal is defense against a direct attack. Iraq did not attack us.

    The second way to make a war legal is an authorized police action by the UN Security Council. We tried hard, but could not get a force authorization though the UN.

    The final possibility is that is is lawful to pursue non-state actors (pirates, terrorists) across national borders either in hot pursuit or after a demand has been made to the government to turn them over. Iraq was not harboring any terrorists who had attacked the US.

    In Afghanistan, on the other hand, the nominal “government” (the Taliban) was harboring terrorists, and the Security Council did authorize a police action within some real estate where the UN did not recognize any government at all.

    Afghan War legal; Iraq not.

    Legal and smart are not the same thing, and they don’t call Afghanistan the graveyard of empires for nothing.

    Anyway, I am disturbed that, confronted with an allegation that a war is illegal, you would say “Prove it!” That’s just fundamentally wrong. It’s those who support the use of military force who have something to prove, ALWAYS, not those who oppose it.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Dude, get a time machine and go find that first caveman with a stick and rock. Laws are determined by WAR – you perhaps have the cart and horse confused.

    O.K. let’s use your ‘beliefs’ of man made temporary rules (laws) For a ‘rule’ to be valid it has to be enforced. Now, would you say that enforcement is illegal? If so we have a real opportunity for some entertainment watching some perpetual tail chasing. 13 violations of U.N. ‘rules’ and subsequent enforcement. Figure it out.

    I’ll take a wild guess Mr. Jehn has never served his country. However he is eager to drink from the fountain of rights the bad ‘cannon fodder’ sacrificed to protect. What’s next, no police?

    Don’t like the policy? Elect someone else who determines it. Don’t like it when they learn the realities that mandate the policy you don’t like and change their tune (viz Obama)? LEARN

  7. masterspork says:

    Sorry about the late reply, I have been busy.

    Anyways getting to the counter-points.

    1. Yes Iraq did not attack us but just because who attacks first has ever been used call something illegal. North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam and yet some how we were in the wrong for helping them.

    2.The UN endorsing a conflict does help but it is not needed to declare war. In fact the UN has only sanctioned a conflict three times in the past 60 years. Korea, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also with Korea, China was actively fighting UN forces and was a major part in how that war went. But I do not see anyone decrying them over actively fighting against UN forces.

    3. One of the reasons that we wanted Saddam gone was that he use Chemical weapons against it’s own population. It had been sanctioned by the UN for past actions and had certain parts that had to be declared “no-fly” zones. It was not that people did not want to see him gone, but how to do it divided people.

    Now as far as burden of proof; I am not trying to justify why we went in there, but challenge that somehow that this conflict is somehow different that any conflict in the past 50 years. So that is why I am asking how is this war “illegal” compared to wars that other nations have fought and why it is that no matter what conflict we take part in we are somehow always in the wrong.

  8. Anonymous says:

    …because we are frequently in the wrong (not always).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.