Army, Marine Corps to Grow

[SWJED]

10 January AFPS - Gates Calls for 92,000 More Soldiers, Marines by Jim Garamone. Reposted in full per DoD guidelines.

The active-duty Army and Marine Corps will grow by 92,000 personnel over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a White House news conference today.

“The President announced last night that he would strengthen our military for the long war against terrorism by authorizing an increase in the overall strength of the Army and Marine Corps,” Gates said. “I am recommending to him a total increase in the two services of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over the next five years.”

The breakout is 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

The increase will make permanent the 30,000 temporary increase in Army end-strength and 5,000 increase in the Marine Corps. Then the services will increase in annual increments of 7,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps.

The Army has a current end-strength of 512,400, with the Marines at 180,000. Under Gates' proposal, the Army’s end-strength will grow to 547,000 and the Marines to 202,000.

“We should recognize that while it may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way,” Gates said.

The increase will give soldiers and Marines more “dwell time” at home, officials said. Currently, units are on close to a one-to-one deployment to dwell time schedule. The increase in end-strength will reduce the stress on deployable active duty personnel.

Army and Marine officials said the services cannot grow forces overnight. Currently, the active duty Army recruits 80,000 young Americans each year with the Marines bringing in 39,000.

Recruiting officials said that right now, only three of 10 young men and women in the 19-to-24-year-old age group meet the standards to enlist in the military.

Those young men and women have a lot of demands for their services, an Army official said, and incentives for enlisting and for service may need to be “plussed-up” to encourage these people to enlist. The services also may need to put more recruiters on the street.

Training the individuals in the proper military occupational specialties is also a potential choke-point. Both the Army and Marine Corps training establishments have some growth potential, and can probably expand to handle the influx, officials in both services said.

[webmarine]

I think "long over due" is an understatement. I might be just a dumb grunt but it seems to me that we need another Marine division at least. In the 1950s, the US military was 5 million active duty strong and now it is what 1.2 million on active duty? Under Reagan we peaked at 2.2 million with the Army having 18 divisions and right now they only have 10 divisions. There is serious overstretch right now. If we are going to be involved in the Middle East, perhaps we need a division there with another fleet? Maybe based in Africa or in Eastern Europe on the periphery of the Mid East.

[Welshman]

What's being overlooked in the comments posted so far - the total length of time that will be required to "grow" competent forces - trained, equipped, and organized. To be able to do this in 5 years seems idealistic, especially since this effort will require the Marine Corps to retained higher numbers of already trained and experienced Marines.

[marct]

Originally Posted by webmarine

If we are going to be involved in the Middle East, perhaps we need a division there with another fleet? Maybe based in Africa or in Eastern Europe on the periphery of the Mid East.

Could you see a division, or more, being based out of the proposed Africa Command?

Marc

[scwestusmc]

Yes indeed it's about time! Adding 5000 quality Marines a year should be possible. It has been done before, way back in my day. (Viet Nam 69-70)
First post from a new guy.

[4302ph]

I think what's being overlooked is the "how" of growing the Corps in the current political climate. As the PAO for a recruiting district, I have spoken with many individuals who desire to consider military service, but are stonewalled by their lack of belief in or support of the current administration and/or war in Iraq. This war is and has been the most polarizing event for the US since Vietnam. The majority of Americans have a very strong opinion of whether we should be in Iraq, and this opinion directly reflects their willingness to volunteer for service. Reasonable people can disagree on the righteousness of the Iraq effort, but those who disagree or are nonsupporters likely need some help reconciling their feelings with their desire to serve.

I think the solution goes something like this:

We, the Marine Corps, needs to explicitly explain that, while you certainly can be onboard with policy and the war, it is certainly NOT a requirement to serve honorably and to be a full-feldged brother- or sister-in-arms who has earned the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. I use myself as an example:

I do not, and have never, agreed with or supported the idea of the war in Iraq. I did not vote for President Bush and I personally think he and his administration have made grevious folly in this endeavor. So, as one can imagine, I certainly do not serve for the president or for "the cause." The reason I continue to serve is simple: because America's servicemembers deserve no less. Every Marine is someone's mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother or friend. Each of them deserve others fighting alongside them whose singular concern is their welfare and wellbeing. For me, as a company grade officer of Marines, I am both honored and humbled to be charged with the responsibility of taking care of Marines. To me, it comes as close to rivaling parenthood as anything possibly can.

Notice that this message transcends politics. I think that this message is exactly what that "loyal opposition" to the Iraq war needs to hear--and they need to hear it from uniformed, active duty servicemembers who continue to serve America even in the face of their personal opposition to the policy and efforts that put them and their (Marines) in harm's way.

This message is apolitical, and in a social climate that is politically supercharged, this is the only message that will speak to that GROWING segment of society who is strattling the fence WRT their political feelings and service.

These opponents of the war are as American--and as patriotic--as the war's supporters. I would hope that the Marine Corps desires their service as much as anyone else.

[WVO]

I wonder more about what this increase will ultimately translate to in the Operating Forces. With only two infantry battalions being added (2/9 and 3/9 - about 2,000 Marines) where will the other 20,000+ go?

I understand that the ratio of tooth to tail always favors tail, but I think we're not doing our best there. Take a look at the FSSG reorganization to MLG. CLBs and CLC's make sense - standing logistics support organizations with habitual relationships with the supported unit. What I don't understand is why each MLG needs three Logistics Regiments. What is the scenario under which all 3 CLRs and the MLG HQs are deployed? Why are there three CLRs in Okinawa if there is only one infantry bn (the MEU GCE)? Come to think of it, why are there nearly 20,000 Marines in Okinawa if there aren't any infantry battalions to support?

This is a small example, but it illustrates the point that we should look in house first. We can start by looking at what billets the 60,000 Marines who haven't yet deployed to OIF/OEF are filling.

[GuitarCrazyo]

Im 40 years out of date, youll have to ask KB. Back in our day, we supported all allies, and U.S. forces that did not have our skill set or who werent trusted to call in Marine & Navy arty, air, or NGF. And so there was some cross training, and that has increased. I dont know about the USAF.

Im a Nammer, and we were fortunate to have Marine and Navy pilots who would come in low, at the risk of their own necks, to put the ordinance where it belonged.