I saw this story yesterday in The Hill, yet for some reason, this story seemed to be flying under the radar. It appears it isn’t any longer, as the NY Times has a piece on it now:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and other Democrats proposed Wednesday to increase the size of the Army by 80,000 troops as a way to alleviate what she called a “crisis” in the military caused by lengthy deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The lawmakers said they would introduce an amendment to the annual Defense Department authorization bill to raise the Army’s authorized strength by 20,000 troops annually in each of the next four years, raising the total force to 582,400. Joining Ms. Clinton at a news conference announcing the proposals were three other Democratic senators, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
Increasing the size of the military, which the Pentagon has called unnecessary, is not a new idea for Democrats who have sought to highlight their differences with the Bush administration on national security. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts proposed a similar plan during his presidential campaign.
But the latest proposal comes amid growing debate, even within the Pentagon, about whether the military at its current size can handle indefinite deployments of 140,000 troops in Iraq and more than 17,000 in Afghanistan.
Hard to argue with the politics of the matter, although this does run counter to Rumsfeld’s desire for a leaner Army.
Keith
Maybe it is time for a full review of our foreign policy/military/security priorities over the next several years. This would involve not only the Administration but Congress and input from the think tanks. It appears more and more that strategy is being developed on the run.
Rumsfeld’s leaner army sounds great in theory, and would likely have been implemented by now had it not been for the underestimation of troop requirements in Iraq. That operation has been sustained with National Guard personnel(at the expense of homeland security) and a weakening of our forces elsewhere in the world.
It is becoming more difficult for Republicans to argue for a strong military when the Secretary of Defense is intent on downsizing bases and limiting troop strength. All of this is giving Sen. Clinton, of all people, an opening to peel some of the military vote away from the Republicans.
Tim F
Bizarre. If the Army can’t meet recruiting goals to sustain current troop levels, it seems fanciful to think that they can whip up an even bigger force just by asking for it.
Marcus Wellby
It a good theory when it comes to hunting down AQ or even taking out Saddam. But its not worth much when it comes to occupation.
Hillary is starting to posture herself for ’08. Calling for a larger Army seems odd given the current problems we are having with recruitment.
I am sick of our leaders on both sides who think nice rhetoric is the same as strong leadership. What we need now is a JFK “to the moon” kind of inspiring speach from a credible leader. I don’t see anyone in either party who is capable of that.
SomeCallMeTim
What’s another $8 bil. a year, really? Plus whatever ancillary costs in equipment and equipment development get justified by the increase in size.
Mr.Ortiz
This sort of thing tends to be a non-starter for Democrats. Republicans have a lock on the national security vote and Liberals run away from candidates who want to increase military spending. That said, if we’re still fighting an insurgency in Iraq by 2008, war-fatigue may just flip that conventional wisdom on its head.
Mr Furious
I hear ya Tim F, not sure how the hell they think they could accomplish that…
As far as the Army’s size and the Rumsfeld “leaner” plans, it all seems like a giant privatization and military contractor scheme to me. Slash personel and then outsource everything for twice (thrice? 10 times?) the price. Which costs more: regular army on KP or a giant Halliburton food contract?
docG
I agree, Marcus Wellby, this is just part of Senator Clinton’s “repositioning” for the 2008 presidential campaign. An old political ploy of speaking out in favor of something that can’t happen, but can be referred to during the campaign season. “Of course I support the military, I worked to increase the size of the military but the Republicans didn’t support the military in this meaningful way at all.”
That said, the “make it up as you go” Bush administration offers nothing better. Leaving the National Guard and Reserve deployed without end in Afganistan and Iraq is ultimately unsustainable.
Let’s hope Trinidad and Tabago doesn’t decide to invade the United States, we won’t have enough troops to repell them! Joking aside, thinking that a traditional war will never be a threat again, and structuring the military in response, is dangerous. Terrorism is not the only conflict possibility in the world. Maybe the third time is the charm and Rumsfeld’s next resignation will be accepted.
Mr Furious
Nicely done, docG, I agree 100% with everything there…
Mr Furious
Addendum: Not sure whether you want my endorsement. After all, I’m a dishonest, insincere, lying sack of shit leftist.
ET
Nice, good, whatever in this post-9/11 world but…. you can raise the strength all you want but it won’t matter if there are no takers. After all the military is having a hard time recruiting as it is.
Brian
So she can say that the Army is falling well short of goals under Republicans in 2008.