I hear numbers like 120,000 troops in Iraq and it just doesn't seem like that many troops to me. And people say that our troops are "spread thin" and we have a lot reserves over there. How many troops do we have total? Should we have more? How many have we had historically? I'm under the impression that we had millions during WW2.
Can someone give me an idea of what scale our military is and/or should be?
It ain't big enough, or we'd have some of them posted at the Southern border.
Real Name: Mark
what about those pesky canadians?
i make my guitar weep, but my champagne cry
If they start becoming a problem.
Real Name: Mark
the army is just a tad over 500K.......those "forces in the area" include members from all branches of the service - i dont know what the other branches are
i do know that Clinton "down scaled" the Army from over 1million to 500K while he was the POTUS
thanks Bill!!!!!!
thanks, jk. does the 500K number include reserves?
I see these shows about reserves in Iraq and their tour is extended by 6 months and they're all crying about it and their family is all ****ed at the govt about it. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go to Iraq for a year. But I also didn't voluntarily join the army or the reserves. If these guys had been drafted I might have a little more sympathy. But OTOH, I'm thinking with "only" 120K troops in Iraq we shouldn't be needing reserves in the first place.
And I guess my rant about "journalists asking a 20 year old enlisted man what he thinks of our presence in Iraq" should go in another thread.
the 500K is active - some of the divisions that got downsized did so into reserve numbers
our troops in world war 2 were over there for 2 and 3 years,....as much as i hate to say it, i agree with you on tour lengths in iraq - and thats with my son over there for another 12 months on top of the 3 he's already served
however, the problem is that since we have such a smaller force, alot of those soldiers are doing 2d and 3d tours - for a year at a time
No, 500k is active duty. I think reserves are in the 700k-800k range.
As far as not needing reserves is concerned, consider that the 500k number is NOT 500k infantry available to go to Iraq. We have commitments to fill other than just Iraq -- we've got a bunch of bases that need staffing worldwide -- and for every infantryman in the Army, there's a certain number of people that have to be tasked to support him (supply, medical, payroll, etc). And then there's the non-infantry combat components like armored and artillery which are of limited use in an urban role (outside of flattening city blocks, that is).
dont forget the CID agents!
IMO, it's also that the civilian populace just isn't committed like it was in WWII. In WWII, we didn't expect it to be easy, so we dug in. This war was "sold" and the expectation of difficulty set at "easy and cheap." It shouldn't be all that surprising that the civilian populace is holding it to that standard.Originally Posted by jk the sooner fan
"etc."dont forget the CID agents!
there are more infantry troops on active duty than any other MOS
can anybody guess the second highest MOS?
etc?
the army medic!
I can't speak for the other branches, but here's what I know for the Air Force.
WE'RE SCREWED!
They're having RIF's (Reduction In Force) and "Force Shaping" boards to cut about 35% of our numbers. The majority are civilians and enlisted, but the ratio of officers being cut compared to the total population is astounding (there are a lot of 4-8 year Captains being issued their walking papers).
The reasoning? They need to cut the workforce so we can buy newer (and extremely expensive planes). I understand their thinking...but good luck fixing that new, expensive plane when you LET GO HALF THE MAINTENANCE FIELD!
Frankly, I'm lucky as hell to have a commission at this point...and I aim on doing everything I can to keep it.
That makes sense.
Another, related, question: What prevents us from growing the military to a level where we can comfortably station troops in Iraq (or nearby countries) for an extended period (i.e. adequate rotations, etc)? Is it money, or simply a lack of people willing to join the military?
So, while the media is telling us that we don't have enough troops, the Air Force is actually cutting its numbers by 35%?
Yep!
short answer - congress
Recruiting during wartime isn't the easiest thing to do. Even in WWII we had a draft, the large lines after Dec 7 notwithstanding.
The Army has been trying pretty hard, and doing some pretty imaginative things. I know a guy who's a recruiter who wanted to return to his original unit, and the Army offered him several tens of thousands of dollars to stay on as a recruiter. It's not for lack of trying.
Posting Permissions
