THE PENTAGON Experts: U.S. military must expand to meet requirements in Iraq

Rumsfeld says commanders will get the troops they require.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's announcement last week that it will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 150,000 to provide more security for the Jan. 30 national election highlights a growing concern that America's armed services are dangerously overextended and possibly nearing a breaking point.
With nearly all of the Army's 10 divisions serving in Iraq, preparing for deployment there or refitting from a combat tour in that country, there are few forces available to deal with a new major threat or emergency, military experts say.
As Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said at a congressional hearing last month, "I'm committed to providing the troops that are requested [for Iraq]. But I can't promise more than I've got."
The Army is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and maintaining a military presence in the Balkans, Germany, South Korea and other foreign countries with a total force of just under 500,000. It had more than 800,000 under arms when it waged the brief Persian Gulf war in 1991.
"You need a bigger Army if you're going to carry out the Bush national security strategy," said Lawrence Korb, who served as assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "Right now, you're really using the reserves at an unsustainable pace, and you're violating the norms that you have for deploying people overseas that you've established not only for equity but for retention."
The United States has more troops in all branches serving abroad than it averaged from 1950 to 2003, and three times as many overseas as it had in December 2001, according to a study by the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.
Guard, reservist burden
"If you look at the world -- and what we're likely to see in the future in terms of potential threats and areas where we need to be involved, either to deter or actually conduct operations -- I think it's clear that we need a larger force than what we have," said Michelle Flournoy, a former deputy assistant defense secretary now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has long maintained that the United States has been supplying all the troops the commanders in the field require. "If they ask for more troops, they'll get them," he said.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki was pushed into early retirement and Army Secretary Thomas White resigned last year after they argued that the United States would need several hundred thousand troops in Iraq to maintain security after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. Since then, Pentagon commanders have been reluctant to contradict Rumsfeld, on or off the record.
But in testimony last month before the House Armed Services Committee, Schoomaker hinted that an expanded force may be required, particularly because so much of the military burden is being borne by National Guard and reserve members who were considered part-time but have virtually become part of the active-duty force.
"If the Army National Guard or Army Reserve cannot muster and provide the formations that are required, perhaps we need to increase the size of the regular Army," Schoomaker told the committee.
Temporary boost
The Defense Department announced last week that more than 183,000 National Guard and reserve troops are on active duty, compared with 79,000 on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Of the 138,000 troops still on duty in Iraq, 40 percent are Guard or reserve members.
The increasing seriousness of the situation emboldened Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to assert during the campaign that re-electing President Bush could mean bringing back the draft.
"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same, and the potential is great for a return to the draft," he said in an interview with The Des Moines Register.
To rebut that assertion, House Republicans arranged an election-eve vote on a reinstatement of the draft that saw it defeated 402-2, sending a clear signal that the idea was politically unpalatable. While arguing against a draft, Kerry called for expanding the Army by two divisions, or about 40,000 troops.