Uncle Sam Wants You

Let me add my voice to the skepticism about what seems to be the consensus position - running from Rudy through Romney, McCain, Obama, and Hillary - that we need a much larger army. I'm open to the possibility, but I'd like to have the whys of it explained a little bit more clearly.

I know that the Rumsfeld theory - that America needs a smaller, lighter, more-agile military, rather than a bigger one - is assumed to have been discredited by Iraq, but it's only been discredited by Iraq if you think that the U.S. should be committing itself to the pacification and democratization of more large Middle Eastern countries in the near future. This does seem to be the theory of at least some of the proponents of a larger army. For instance, Jim Talent, in a long print mag-only piece for National Review calling for a larger military, framed America's current national-security challenge this way:

The world today is, on balance, at least as dangerous as it was at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. is no longer in danger of a massive nuclear attack, nor is a major land war in Europe likely, but the threats we face are no less serious. America is engaged in a war against terrorism that will last for years. The danger of a rogue missile attack is greater than ever. China is emerging as a peer competitor much faster than most of us expected, and Russia's brief experiment with democracy is failing.

In this landscape, he argued:

The current force is too small and too old relative to the requirements of the official national military strategy. That strategy calls for a military capable of defending the homeland, sustaining four peacekeeping engagements, and fighting two large-scale regional conflicts at approximately the same time. The services today probably cannot execute even this strategy within an acceptable margin of risk. Certainly they will be unable to do so in the future unless the Army and probably the Marine Corps are made bigger and unless all the services have the money to recapitalize their major platforms with modern equipment.

... Even in an age of transformation and non-linear battlefields, America will always need the capacity to put boots on the ground. Particularly in the post-9/11 era, the U.S. needs the ability to carry on sustained, large-scale peacekeeping or low-intensity combat missions, without having to send the same units on three or four tours over the life of a mission. A nation of America's size and strength should not have to tie up essentially its whole active-duty Army, much of its Marine Corps, and many of its reserves in order to sustain 130,000 troops in the kind of low-intensity combat we are experiencing in Iraq.

I don't have any quarrel with Talent's points about the need to modernize equipment, and if that requires spending four percent of GDP on defense, as he argues later in the piece, then so be it. But the numbers issue, well ... Let's suppose, for a moment, that Talent's right, and America's national security requires, in the very near future, that we treat the Iraq occupation as the sort of thing we do as a matter of course (though Iraq is the first instance since Vietnam in which we've kept this many troops engaged in a "low-intensity" conflict for this long). Let's further suppose, as he suggests, that we actually need to be able to fight two Iraq Wars at once, while maintaining those four peacekeeping engagements as well. If he's right, then this is a dire and dangerous circumstance in our nation's history - and if it's so dire as to require an open-ended commitment to grueling, low-intensity warfare around the world for the indefinite future, wouldn't this be a natural moment to reinstitute the draft, rather than trying to fight our way through with an all-volunteer force? Indeed, isn't the real lesson of the Iraq War that an all-volunteer military is poorly-suited to the kind of national-security strategy that Talent and others have in mind? If you really think that the U.S. needs to be prepated to engage in a long series of Iraq War-style projects going forward, then tinkering around with an extra 50,000 troops here and there is frankly irresponsible: We need large-scale mobilization, along the lines of Vietnam if not the Second World War.

On the other hand, if you don't think the U.S. should be trying to do Iraq all over again any time soon - if you think, in fact, that the lesson of the last few years is that we ought to be fighting the War on Terror (or whatever you want to call it) with small-scale, pinprick operations, while avoiding quagmires at all costs - then it's not clear that the benefits of a bigger armed forces outweigh the drawbacks. It is clear that dramatically expanding the size of the military is going to involve 1) accepting lower-quality recruits, as we've already been forced to do by the Iraq War, 2) increasing the percentage of non-citizen soldiers, as we've already been forced to do by the Iraq War. A larger military, in other words, would be less representative of America and less American all at once - and both of these at a time when the civilian-military divide is already wide and growing wider, with unfortunate consequences for the republic.

And for what? None of our rivals is anywhere close to being capable of winning a traditional land war against us as it is; insofar as we need a deterrent against Russia or China or Iran, it's hard to see how extra boots to put on the ground would make it any more credible than it already is. Let's spend on the technology we'd need to defeat China in a cyberwar, let's spend on the special ops we'd need to knock an al Qaeda group in the Horn of Africa - but if we're spending money recruiting more grunts to throw into the fire, let's admit that the only reason to have those troops is for "freedom agenda" purposes - to get the next Iraq right. Which means that if we're going to have a debate about expanding the military, we should really be having a debate about where, when and if we're going to re-run the Iraq Project. That's the important question, and we can only decide how big our military should be once we've answered it.

Comments

The human race just isn't trying very hard to kill itself anymore. Global military spending is down to about 2% of world GDP.

The US spends around twice that percentage, so the Pentagon accounts for just under 50% of global military expenditures.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/08/war-human-race-just-isnt-trying-very.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 9, 2007 8:51 PM

I think you're reading the wrong lessons from the present situation. First, the lower quality recruits are not so much a function of the need for more soldiers as a reflection of the unwillingness of the marginal recruit to risk multiple deployments in a 3-4 year enlistment. The return to a largely peacetime footing is likely to again make the military an acceptable career path for such individuals. We supported a much larger volunteer Army under Reagan and Papa Bush, pulled from a somewhat smaller population base. Second, trying to read analogies to the Roman Empire into the presence of "foreign troops" (most of whom are resident aliens in line for citizenship anyway) is just silly. These are qualified individuals who tend to speak fluent English (actually the biggest communication problem that tends to exist is with Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican soldiers who are American citizens) and whose ties to America tend to be almost as strong as yours and mine. We're not staffing our Army with the detritus of our imperial conquests. Third, the goal is to have the capability to send the appropriate number of troops the first time around if and when such a situation arises. If we had the Army to send and sustain a 150,000-250,000 man force the first time around many of the security problems that have emerged would not have done so. Castrating or limiting the Army in the hope that this keeps it from being used is a copout strategy; electoral accountability is the democratic means of calling politicians to account, not denuding our military strength and the deterrent it presents to the Chinas and the rogue states of the world.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 9, 2007 10:08 PM

I agree, the kind of recruitment of resident aliens that's going on now isn't a big deal. This, on the other hand, I find more troubling, and it's the kind of thing that may be required to substantially increase the size of the military without a draft:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/news/military.php

Posted by Ross Douthat | May 9, 2007 11:52 PM

Fair enough, but keep in mind we're still talking about what are in relative terms a very small number of soldiers, a few thousand out of an overall force strength that, reserves included, numbers in the millions. And in some circumstances, particularly in attracting dialect-specific linguists, such programs have demonstrable benefits. This tends to be an issue that animates me as one of my wife's dear friends was killed in Iraq and though he had lived in this country since he was a small child he only earned his citizenship posthumously.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 10, 2007 12:09 AM

"Let's suppose, for a moment, that Talent's right, and America's national security requires, in the very near future, that we treat the Iraq occupation as the sort of thing we do as a matter of course (though Iraq is the first instance since Vietnam in which we've kept this many troops engaged in a "low-intensity" conflict for this long). Let's further suppose, as he suggests, that we actually need to be able to fight two Iraq Wars at once, while maintaining those four peacekeeping engagements as well. "

Assume that wars such as Iraq would require 300K troops, for three years (which is probably an underestimate, but I'm being generous). Say that 'peacekeeping' missions require >70K troops, for a year, so that four such missions could require as many as one Iraq-size war.

To run 2 Iraq wars + four peacekeeping deployments simultaneously would require 900K troops *to be deployed overseas* on a continuous basis. Assuming a duty cycle of 1 year in 'Iraq', 1 year peacekeeping, 1 year at home,
we'd have to have 1.3 million soldiers and Marines available for deployment. And such a duty cycle would break a military in three years, so we're really talking about an Army+Marine force of 3 million plus, if we want to do this for a decade or two.

National Guard/Reserve forces are untenable under this scenario, since they'd be pulling 1 year of active duty every 3 years for 10-20 years, and that's just not sustainable.

So we come down to a 2-3 million-person ground force, probably closer to 3 million.

When was the last time that we tried to do that?
IRRC, it hasn't been since WWII.

Even cutting this back to one ongoing Iraq-size war, assuming 300K troops on the ground, and a 1:2 ratio of deployed:in garrison years, we're talking about a ground force of 900K, and still almost 100% regulars (no Reserves/NG).

Posted by Barry | May 10, 2007 10:46 AM

Can Talent be serious when he says this: “The world today is, on balance, at least as dangerous as it was at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. is no longer in danger of a massive nuclear attack, nor is a major land war in Europe likely, but the threats we face are no less serious.” So a massive nuclear attack or a WWII style land war in Europe is equal to or less than what we currently face from Al Qaeda? Really? How can anybody really think that? If my choice was between the renewed possibility of nuclear annihilation or a couple of crazy Muslims with bombs strapped to their chest, give me the Muslims every time.

Also, it seems that Talent is trying to fight the “crazy Muslim” option with the Cold War solution. But doesn’t the “crazy Muslim” problem demand a different solution? For instance, how would 3 million troops flung all over the globe been able to stop the 9/11 hijackers? Of course, not to change the subject, but if our country had a sane immigration policy and tighter controls over who gets a visa, 9/11 almost assuredly would not have happened. So, I guess I’m forced to support the mainstream candidate for president that supports immigration restrictions. Hmm…who would that be?

Posted by Macbrvs94 | May 10, 2007 11:37 AM

Mac
The distinction between the Cold War and the crazy Muslims with the bombs is that the Soviet Union was deterrable. It's leaders were quasi-rational and to the extent that they were ideological understood that the inevitability of their success counseled prudence. Millennarianism tends to be less so. Even the most avoewd Marxist didn't suppose that historical determinism was going to guide his bullets and deflect his opponent's.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | May 10, 2007 12:15 PM

Right, I agree that there is a distinction between the Cold War and Crazy Muslims. It’s Talent that appears not to understand the distinction. His argument is basically, “the cold war was dangerous but it’s got nothing on these Crazy Muslim’s. That’s why we need a Cold War era sized military!”

If your point, Anonymous Conservative, is that the Cold War was not as dangerous because the logic of mutually assured destruction prevented the possibility of civilian casualties, well I suppose that’s kind of a decent point. However, if our purpose today is to prevent civilian causalities in the U.S. at the hands of Crazy Muslims we should probably start with our immigration policies as I noted above. A gigantic military meddling with every crackpot country we can get our hands on would not be an effective defense against a handful of determined Crazy Muslims mixed in with the thousands of Saudi nationals (for example) we allow into this country on visas.

Posted by Macbrvs94 | May 10, 2007 2:46 PM

The Rumsfeld "smaller, lighter, more-agile military" describes an effective agressor force, the part that takes ground. Only a military theorist with no military experience would think it could describe the whole. That's the "head in the clouds" or head somewhere else mentality that got us here.
Armies need to be ready for what may come. We do need good agressor forces, but after the attack it's number of boots on the ground that secure the long range objectives. His shortsighted objectives foreshortened his requirements.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | May 10, 2007 6:27 PM

Looking back at the drastic downsizing of the military in the early 1990's in hopes of reaping the "peace dividend", it now appears to have been a poor strategy.

The ground arms of the military have been strained since the end of Desert Storm, but we could always short-change, or turn down peacekeeping missions in the past. In this time of war, all the downsizing has come back to bite us, and I really fear that it will hurt the Army and Marines in the near future. I have not spent a full year home in the last 5 years due to deployments, and I am not alone. I am a career NCO, so I will stay in for the duration, but a lot of mid-level Soldiers and NCO's may not be there to take my place when I do finally retire.

The truth is, in almost any military action the US undertakes, ground troops will play a role, and they will be on the ground for a longer period than expected.

Americans have never really decided if the US should play the role of the "world's policeman", nor has they ever really decided what the "something" that needs to be done in cases like Darfur, Iraq, Iran , etc.

Posted by SFC SKI | May 11, 2007 7:45 AM

Kagan's _Finding the Target_ discusses the issue of military size in the context of an analysis of the latest revolution in military affairs (he strongly criticizes Rumsfeld's vision of transformation, among other things), and he, too, argues that we need a larger Army and Marine Corps for the strategic realities of today's world. I found the entire book to be a fascinating read.

Posted by Chris Burgwald | May 11, 2007 11:18 AM

Ross -- this is a side issue to your main point, but I have to take you up on this:

[T]he Rumsfeld theory - that America needs a smaller, lighter, more-agile military, rather than a bigger one - is assumed to have been discredited by Iraq, but it's only been discredited by Iraq if you think that the U.S. should be committing itself to the pacification and democratization of more large Middle Eastern countries in the near future.

The US should be committing itself to the democratization of more Middle Eastern countries. It just shouldn't be committing itself to democratizing them by invading them and destroying all existing power structures using military force. Don't fall into the neocon trap of thinking you're only serious about democratization if you want to use military force to do it.

Posted by william | May 12, 2007 2:58 PM