How Will the US Meet Its Committments?

David Floyd · October 30, 2003, 22:35

It's becoming increasingly clear that with all of the new international deployments and committments forced on the military, more personnel will be needed to both meet these committments, and maintain a large enough "strategic reserve" to meet unforseen contingencies.

So, one obvious answer to this problem is to reduce the number of committments worldwide, however, that doesn't seem to be a realistic option, given the current Administration.

The solution then becomes to increase numbers of personnel in the military - or at least combat soldiers. What is the best way to do this? The options I see are as follows:

Persuade the international community to provide more forces

The downsides here are that these troops would not be used to working with the US military; language barriers; the fact that much of the world is none too happy with the US right now; and the fact that greater international contingents could conceivably lead to foreign officers commanding US troops, something that isn't desirable (to the US, anyway).

Re-establishing the draft

Undesirable for obvious reasons - and the military doesn't want conscripts anyway.

Increase enlistments through greater enticements

Possibly the best solution, given the fact that more manpower must be found, however, the downside here is that this would be expensive.

Any other views?

Nubclear · October 30, 2003, 22:38

Well, we can't ask the international community. They'll say "OK. Any country that wants to can

", and then send a meager amount.
Exception: Poland. They love us, and we love them because their gonna be a superpower

Second: Ha! That'll never happen.

Third: Best option. It will cost more, yes, but that is the solution to this problem.

David Floyd · October 30, 2003, 22:40

It may sound like it is the best solution, but somehow I doubt its effectiveness. I, for one, would be extremely unwilling to sign up for the military right now, knowing there would be a chance I'd end up in Iraq, regardless of the enticement. I imagine many other people my age would feel the same way.

Nubclear · October 30, 2003, 22:42

Well, it's certainly better than international forces, and...Well, I don't have to explain why the draft would never work

DanS · October 30, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

So, one obvious answer to this problem is to reduce the number of committments worldwide, however, that doesn't seem to be a realistic option, given the current Administration.

The US is reducing its commitments as we type.

David Floyd · October 30, 2003, 22:48

Quote:

The US is reducing its commitments as we type.

Not where it counts. The US isn't going to be able to maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq, with substantial forces in Afghanistan, Korea, etc., and still maintain a credible strategic reserve of more than a division or so - and that division will probably be on rotation back home from deployment, anyway.

When I say "reduce committments", I'm talking about major ones involving brigade- or division-sized forces, from major theaters - Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. And I hate to make a Vietnam comparison WRT to Iraq, as this isn't really an Iraq thread, but the fact is that US casualties are going to continue, and even increase, as long as the US stays in Iraq.

DanS · October 31, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

The US isn't going to be able to maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq

Why would we maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq?

Jon Miller · October 31, 2003, 01:20

we sould have zuxiliaryts

KJon Mil;er

David Floyd · October 31, 2003, 01:24

Quote:

Why would we maintain such a large occupation force in Iraq?

I see few indications of a large scale withdrawal, although admittedly, that's hardly conclusive evidence.

In any case, though, you must admit that the US military needs more combat personnel. The invasion of Iraq was run nearly on a shoestring.

DanS · October 31, 2003, 01:58

We now have some 120,000 troops in Iraq. As I understand it, we have been withdrawing troops slowly over the last couple of months.

Uncle Sparky · October 31, 2003, 02:24

What about if the US only drafts right wing Apolytoners ?
They shouldn't even have to be American citizens... sort of a Foreign Legion...

... actually, a US Foreign Legion might not be a bad idea ... I bet a lot of impoverished folks would join up. Maybe they could even be granted full US citizenship if they reach the rank of sergeant/major or equivalent ...

POTUS · October 31, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
I bet a lot of impoverished folks would join up. Maybe they could even be granted full US citizenship if they reach the rank of sergeant/major or equivalent ...

We already have that. Non-US citizens can join the military, and after 7 years, they automatically become US citizens. However, they have to be legal immigrants and stay in the military for 7 years.

Uncle Sparky · October 31, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by POTUS

We already have that. Non-US citizens can join the military, and after 7 years, they automatically become US citizens. However, they have to be legal immigrants and stay in the military for 7 years.

The French Foreign Legion didn't require members to be legal immigrants. Generally they were assigned to the really bad postings and other cannon fodder positions. Wouldn't it be great to send 100,000 "American" troups into the wilds of Afghanistan to finish the job there? All you'd be putting to risk is foreign nationals, and America can take the credit !

germanos · October 31, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky

The French Foreign Legion didn't require members to be legal immigrants. Generally they were assigned to the really bad postings and other cannon fodder positions. Wouldn't it be great to send 100,000 "American" troups into the wilds of Afghanistan to finish the job there? All you'd be putting to risk is foreign nationals, and America can take the credit !

Hey! You just stole Osama's idea!

And isn't it so that the US wants to fight those countries who alledgedly use the same tactics? (Syria and Iran)

I get the feeling the world is at a much worse point I could have ever imagined.

Uncle Sparky · October 31, 2003, 03:50

Actually, the French Foreign Legion was just a variation on the mercenary theme... but even Dubbya isn't dumb enough to suggest the US hire mercenaries.

He would much rather spend billions of $$ and call them "allies". Foreign Legion would be cheaper.

MichaeltheGreat · October 31, 2003, 04:26

"mercenaries" is soooo last century.

We call them PMCs now (Private Military Companies)

MichaeltheGreat · October 31, 2003, 04:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
We now have some 120,000 troops in Iraq. As I understand it, we have been withdrawing troops slowly over the last couple of months.

There's a lot of loggies, squids and airedales that are sort of ToaB for occupation purposes, and other sorts of REMF's like 1 CAB and MP's and stuff which are useful, so there's a transformation of force, more than a real reduction. We're also thinning some things out, and lowering our density in Indian Country, such as by having only a single brigade of 82 ABD in country. That's not necessarily a good solution either way.

Sikander · October 31, 2003, 06:22

Increasing the size of the American military might be a good idea, especially while the jobless recovery is still on.