Manpower needed to fight WW III

By MICHAEL GOODWIN
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
In the past, President Bush opposed three big changes to the military: increasing the size of our forces, sending more troops to Iraq and bringing back the draft. Now, however, he favors expanding our forces and is hinting more troops will go to Iraq. If he comes around on the draft, it'll be a trifecta flip-flop.
It also will mark a belated realization that there is no end in sight to World War III. Chief among Bush's mistakes is thinking we could fight Islamic terrorism around the globe while not troubling our entire nation with a call to sacrifice. Finally, he seems to be recognizing the folly of that course.
Bush's decision to support a military expansion is tied to our problems in Iraq. Discussions about whether to "surge" our troops there are dogged by fears that the Army is dangerously overextended, which proves that our military is simply too small. We are the world's lone superpower. We are also an extraordinarily wealthy nation and have a population of 300 million, so we can afford the military we need.
Yet we have tied policymakers' hands by arbitrarily limiting our Army to about 500,000 active-duty troops and our Marines to 180,000. The policy should be that we have as many troops as needed to keep America safe, not as many as we can spare in a slimmed-down military.
The numbers are stark. We have about 200,000 troops in the Mideast, and adding even 20,000 more is not sustainable, military officials argue. As the war approaches its fourth anniversary, many soldiers are on their second or even third combat tours. Wide use of reserves and National Guard troops are creating problems with those forces, which were not intended for extended overseas duty.
Smaller Army
The solution is clear when you consider how dramatically we shrunk the Army since Vietnam, when we had about 1.5 million troops on active duty, according to The New York Times. The number fell to around 800,000 for much of the 1970s and 1980s. After the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, the force dropped to below 600,000, then to 484,000. After 9/11, Congress authorized a hike of 30,000, to 514,000.
Five years later, we haven't reached that total, with about 507,000 on active duty.
"I'm inclined to believe it's important and necessary to do," Bush said about an increase, adding, "This ideological war we're in is going to last for a while." He didn't specify what increase he would seek. Many Democrats also favor an expansion. Bush's about-face illustrates how policies are changing since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense.
Rumsfeld believed in a smaller, lighter Army that could substitute speed and firepower for numbers. Rumsfeld also opposed adding to our numbers in Iraq. Although Bush and Gates hint they are leaning in that direction, their decision and public support depend on whether a case can be made that more troops will stop the mayhem. The recent effort to broaden the Iraqi governing coalition is a sign that added troops would aim to buy Iraqis time to get their act together, not achieve a military victory.
All of which leaves the draft unresolved. Bush is still opposed to it, but the draft may be the best and fastest way to expand the military. It would also be the way to guarantee that the burdens of defending our country are shared. Those issues should at least be considered and debated as we gear up to face a global, entrenched enemy.
Perhaps Bush will agree now that he's in a mind-changing mood.
Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.