Chuck Hagel: the Army could maybe focus on coastal defense

coast artiller

One of the important things to understand about US military strength is that the size of the armed forces is one of the most intensively studied subjects in the US government. The Navy has the easiest time in these exercises — how many carriers to you need on station, modify the number to reflect refits and in transits, add the number of supporting ships the carriers need — the Army has the hardest.

For decades the strength of the Army was based on the size of force deemed necessary to stop the Red Army on the inter-German frontier. The magic mantra was “ten divisions in ten days.” This number was derived by wargaming attrition of Soviet forces passing from the Western military districts of the Soviet Union through Poland and into East Germany. In short, the size of the Army was dependent upon the capacity of Polish rail yards and the number of rail cars that could use Polish rails at roughly the same time. The decision to store sufficient equipment for 4 2/3 armored/mechanized infantry divisions in warehouses in the Benelux and Germany ensured the combat strength could be reached.

All of that went out the window when the USSR went belly up. In the words of a very senior planner in the Bush41 administration, there was no logical floor to the size of the Army without a Soviet threat. He proved prophetic as no political consensus could be reached on potential ground combat scenarios and absent that consensus the Army’s budget, especially its manpower budget which gets you real money in the current budget year, was up for grabs. To say the Army is panicked in the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan is an understatement:

There is nothing new in this phenomenon. After every major conflict over the past 70 years, the nation’s leaders have decided that they see no future for conflicts and challenges involving a major land component. Over and over again, they have been proven wrong. As a consequence, time after time the Department of Defense has been required to undergo the costly and lengthy consuming process of rebuilding the land forces that were allowed to deteriorate. Too often, the Army has been required to throw inadequately trained and prepared ground forces in insufficient numbers into these foreign conflicts in order to stave off defeat and buy the time necessary to build and deploy a capable …read more    

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *