American's armed forces are growing bigger to reduce the strains from seven years of war, but if the US is confronting an era of "persistent conflict," as some experts believe, it will need an even bigger military.
A larger military could more easily conduct military and nation-building operations around the world. But whether the American public has the appetite to pursue and pay for such a foreign-policy agenda, especially after more than five years of an unpopular war in Iraq, is far from clear.
Last week, the Army released a new manual on "stability operations" that outlines for the Army a prominent global role as a nation-builder. The service will maintain its ability to fight conventional land wars, but the manual's release signals that it expects future conflicts to look more like Iraq or Afghanistan than World War II. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates has not publicly supported expanding the force beyond what is already planned, he has said the United States must prepare for more counterinsurgency wars like the ones it is fighting now - a hint that a larger military may be necessary.
Some analysts are certain of that need...
Much more at The Christian Science Monitor.
Comments
The article covers some good points and those quoted raise some good issues.
Frank Hoffman is quoted as saying, "The Army is not fundamentally investing in new capabilities or creating any unique skill sets, or reducing training requirements or workload from conventional fighting,"
I think this is one of those issues that is evolving even as Mr. Lubold's article went to press. There is significant work being done to identify new requirements for personnel assessment, tracking and utilization being done on a number of levels. While it often seems like the institution moves on a geological wrist watch, that just may be indicative of its conservatory functions and the time required to demonstrate relevance. I would also note that there has been good dialogue at the leader level to adjust mission statements, CDR's guidance and pre-deployment training to reflect "D" METL use of resources (time being the most significant perhaps) vs. strict adherence to "C" METL. This is generally a leader call, and they seem to be making it. I think the institutions have done a reasonable job thus far in balancing their requirements while also resourcing initiatives in their PME or centers which can identify and explore rationale for change and acceptance of risk. It may seem like a small expenditure, but the returns have been fairly high yield with regard to helping military and civilian leaders understand the requirements of the policy objectives and the conditions.
Congressman Murtha is reported to have aruged "Rep. Jack Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania recently argued that the cost of a bigger force is too much and could prevent the military from buying equipment."
That is a fair concern I think, but has to be considered against the context of the role military power is to play in achieving policy objectives. In this case it may not just pertain to military force but might also include military forces used in the full spectrum of operations IAW DoD Dir 3000.05.
We've recently seen how events in the U.S. economy affected world markets, is it a bridge too far to consider that what may happen in other places that while not demonstrating an immediate existential threat, may still require us to act in our interests, and possibly in a manner or timing that requires the employment military forces or force to do so? That may be hard to choke down among current domestic concerns, but if you wait to determine you need a bigger military until the time you need it, the consequences are probably OBE. Equipping the military to do the full spectrum of operations with the best available equipment is a tall order, but one that seems to be as much a question of priorities as sheer fiscal numbers. No easy answers there, but that is why when the budget goes to Congress, everyone needs to be educated.
Dr. Chu is quoted as saying:
"Few of those attempts, and fewer of those legislative proposals, ever mention the military," he says. If the country were to reverse that stand, "there won't be serious recruiting issues."
I think that gets to the other challenge, its one thing to put a number on the wall, its another thing to recruit, train, educate, and retain that number in a way that allows it to do the things you desire it to be able to do in a manner that reduces risk to your objectives. While I also applaud the expansion of national service opportunities, to omit the military from those opportunities might infer that legislators did not see it as national service, did not understand the requirements of growing the force they desire, or were concerned that to include military service might somehow be construed as unpopular by their target audience.
Every American should know that serving in its military is among the most important and best things they may ever do as Americans. It is among the greatest of ways to preserve the freedoms, opportunity and privileges they have inherited by birth and enjoy in life through the sacrifices of a relatively small number of Americans.
These are both tangible and intangible objects which so many in the world are envious of, and which must be defended against. Not only against those who would deny them to those in their own lands, but because as long as the freedoms we enjoy here at home exist they will remain attractive to others, and as such a threat to those who hate them. This makes our freedoms subject to attack, not only here at home, but abroad as we interact with others in trade or the exchange of ideas.
When military force is committed,it is done so to secure or advance some interest which translates to something we hold worthy here at home. As such every American should not only be afforded the opportunity to serve in our nation's military, but encouraged by its civilian leadership to do so where able.
Best, Rob