Should the US Expand Its Army?

[Sunstone]

Currently, the US Army is pretty close to over extended. For instance: The US Army is in no position to fight a war in Korea should one break out. So, should the US expand its army?

 

[evearael]

Aren't they still having difficulty meeting the recruiting goals as they stand now? I think they would have to add even more incentives to join. Considering enlistment bonuses for some jobs are as high as $25,000, it would be an expensive proposition to increase those and then there is the cost of advertising... I think expansion is the best idea, as long as they aren't overly aggressive about it. I think if a war broke out right now with North Korea, many troops would be pulled from Afghanistan and Iraq, whether or not the jobs are done leaving a power vacuum that will further destabilize the region... and I'm quite certain Iran will capitalize on it. Considering the strength of the North Korean military it would be vital to disable them as quickly as possible... and then we would have three countries to rebuild and stabilize.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Currently, the US Army is pretty close to over extended. For instance: The US Army is in no position to fight a war in Korea should one break out. So, should the US expand its army?

Yes. An increase in pay and benefits should do the trick.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, I think that we should expand our Army. It's stretched way too thin and cannot support another war in the near future.

We need to learn to wage war more efficiently if we're going to be at it as long as some people think...

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Yes, I think that we should expand our Army. It's stretched way too thin and cannot support another war in the near future.

We need to learn to wage war more efficiently if we're going to be at it as long as some people think...

Hense, the wise and powerful Rumsfeld's restructuring of the military. *ducks for cover*

 

[Capt. Haddock]

I find it strange that we have a bigger military/defence budget now than we did during the cold war.

Back then, our enemy was a nuclear-armed superpower with a vast army, a powerful navy, a top-notch airforce, some of the world's greatest scientists and expansionist ambitions.

Today our enemy is... who, exactly? A few ragtag gangs of primitives? Some disaffected Mau-Maus in the marches of the Empire?

I think today's militarism is less about national security and more about economics. The military and its ancillary industries account for a large proportion of GDP, and if you consider the indirect "cross-subsidies" from military to civilian R&D, an even bigger driver of technology and industry. In addition, the military and the defence industry act as major employers in many parts of the hinterland, sometimes acting as an employer of last resort in economically blighted areas. Every senator and congressman is happy to get a military base or a bomb factory in their constituency...lots of steady, high paying jobs with good benefits. Sure beats McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

Remember what pulled us out of the great depression? The New Deal helped, but it was mostly the boost in production related to World War II. The newspapers won't tell you this, but the only thing that has kept the US economy from going down the crapper in the last few years has been the massive injection of government spending, mostly thanks to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It certiainly wasn't consumer spending drawn on cheap credit and various asset price bubbles which have already fizzled out.

We live in the age of military Keynesianism.

 

[silvermoon383]

Here’s what I think should happen with the military structure:

First, for the war on terror, emphasis should be on Special Forces groups (Rangers, Green Berets, SEALs, Marine Force Recon, AFSFs, British SAS, Australian SAS, German GSG-9, Rainbow, etc, etc. [Ok, I know Rainbow isn’t real, but do I wish {Rainbow’s from the Tom Clancy book Rainbow Six}]) These groups are best suited for anti-terrorism duty. These SFs would be supported by intelligence from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other intelligence agencies.

The regular US Air Force and other Air Forces would also be the ones to do a lot of anti-terrorism duty as airplanes can easily drop guided bombs on confirmed terrorist safe houses and leaders when the SFs can’t get there (take the bombing of Al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as an example)

Second, the standing regular military units would be those who would stand against other regular armies, such as China’s, N. Korea’s, etc.

Both groups would have major emphasis on rapid deployment, technological superiority, and international correlation through coalitions.

Military decisions would be left up to the commanders in the field, NOT the politians or armchair generals in Washington. The politicians and armchair generals would set the goals, not policy or tactics.

And as a final note, each branch of the US military would not be treated as a different military altogether, but as different players of the same team. (I know that’s what it’s supposed to be like, but reality is quite different.)

And yes, all should be beefed up in size and training.

 

[Mathematician]

Currently, the US Army is pretty close to over extended. For instance: The US Army is in no position to fight a war in Korea should one break out. So, should the US expand its army?

Definately not! I fear we're concentrating way too much on foreign problems when we're suffering from the pressing matters of illegal immigration, domestic terrorism, civil liberties, and government fraud. I don't believe in complete isolationism, but expanding our Empire (through our military) is doing us no good. It led us to Iraq.

Put the money in defence, not offence.

 

[robtex]

before that question could even be addressed we would have to decide why a country should have a miltary at all and what purposes that force would serve .

Some possible past ideas I have read include

1) self protection
2) expansion of domain
3) economic and political negociation tool
4) foreign investment tool
5) natural disaster relief tool (like with hurricane katrina)
6) segmented and niche market economy booster. For instance lockheed martin's growth has been intimatly link to US foreign policy

than the next step would be to see what we had and what we needed based on what was the reason for having such a force. It really is purely academic though because the USA has internal capital interests both in terms of lobbying efforts and private investing interests that have much more of an impact on our foreign policy than joe-voter does. Why the citizens would want an army and how they would articulate the logisitics of one in terms of size and expenditures is not congruent to why political parties reasons and motives for manuever their logisitcs of size and expenditures in the way that they do.

When miltary expenditures are brought up buzz words like "the war on terror" are thrown out as opposed to theoritical proposition on why a country maintains an armed service and what the uses for the tax payer provided services.

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

All I have to say if a another war breaks out is Draft.

 

[Mr. Hair]

Currently, the US Army is pretty close to over extended. For instance: The US Army is in no position to fight a war in Korea should one break out. So, should the US expand its army?

Goodness gracious, no. A conventional military is of little use for dealing with the rigors of the 21st century, and of no use whatsoever in negating terrorism. A greater interest in economics and inter-regional diplomacy would serve the US, and the west, far better then any runaway military budget.

If force must be used, it must be wielded as a scalpel, not a cudgel. A precise, contained and mobile strike-force which respects international boundaries and ultimately seeks to further the cause of law and justice; rather then a lumbering behemoth of an occupying army, which causes as much unrest and civil strife as it prevents and often becomes distracted by other, recently alienated enemies.

Terrorism should not be treated as an act of war but as a criminal offence, and the methods in preventing and dealing with such incidents should vary accordingly. To do otherwise accords a false aura of legitimacy on those who carry out such attacks, and distorts our perception of the threats they pose.

As for North Korea, with the best will in the world the US is far and away from being able to declare war upon it. In East Asia the choice of options available on this issue are dependent on the dispositions of other nations towards both Pyongyang and the United States, and the US is simply one influence among many, albeit a relatively powerful one. Bringing home some of the troops from current warzones or increasing the military budget would help, but not by enough.

The fact is that currently the influence and ability of the United States to dictate the course of world events is on the wane, and such circumstances look likely (though are by no means certain) to continue for the foreseeable future. The recent populist tendency of much of South America, long considered the 'backyard' of the USA, is a case in point.

As for the other major players in that region; China has no wish for a US-backed war so close to it's own borders, an errant client-state is much preferable then an uncertain pro-western one, not to mention Bejing's current concern over the constant trickle of Korean refugee's (which would likely turn into a flood in the event of sustained conflict) and it's general desire to safeguard its rapid economic and political growth by maintaining the status quo. South Korea has of late been making efforts to defuse the tense situation near the border, believing it has more to lose then gain by a regime change or sudden souring of relations with its neighbour. Japan, despite an apparently genuine desire to limit the excesses of North Korea remains apathetic towards actual conflict, and as for India it has little reason and no wish to jeapordise the tentative relationship shared with China.

Without committed and sustained support from other integral nations within the region, the US is simply not able to directly oppose North Korea at this present time.

(And that's ignoring the problems North Korea itself would pose to such an invasion, which while not insurmountable would be considerable)

Well... Erm, that turned into a slight of a rant. *smiles*

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, should the US expand its army?

NO!!!

We need to get out of at least ONE PLACE. Get our soldiers back where they belong.

 

[Valjean]

NO!

The military's primary function should be protection from foreign invasion. If we stopped using it as a tool to protect or expand our economic interests we'd have more than enough strength to protect our borders.

 

[BUDDY]

I would support increased funding for our military, but I would not support an increase in overall numbers of troops.

 

[cardero]

So, should the US expand its army?

No, the U.S. just needs to choose the wars they get involved with better.

 

[Comprehend]

Goodness gracious, no. A conventional military is of little use for dealing with the rigors of the 21st century, and of no use whatsoever in negating terrorism. A greater interest in economics and inter-regional diplomacy would serve the US, and the west, far better then any runaway military budget.

If force must be used, it must be wielded as a scalpel, not a cudgel. A precise, contained and mobile strike-force which respects international boundaries and ultimately seeks to further the cause of law and justice; rather then a lumbering behemoth of an occupying army, which causes as much unrest and civil strife as it prevents and often becomes distracted by other, recently alienated enemies.

Terrorism should not be treated as an act of war but as a criminal offence, and the methods in preventing and dealing with such incidents should vary accordingly. To do otherwise accords a false aura of legitimacy on those who carry out such attacks, and distorts our perception of the threats they pose.

As for North Korea, with the best will in the world the US is far and away from being able to declare war upon it. In East Asia the choice of options available on this issue are dependent on the dispositions of other nations towards both Pyongyang and the United States, and the US is simply one influence among many, albeit a relatively powerful one. Bringing home some of the troops from current warzones or increasing the military budget would help, but not by enough.

The fact is that currently the influence and ability of the United States to dictate the course of world events is on the wane, and such circumstances look likely (though are by no means certain) to continue for the foreseeable future. The recent populist tendency of much of South America, long considered the 'backyard' of the USA, is a case in point.

As for the other major players in that region; China has no wish for a US-backed war so close to it's own borders, an errant client-state is much preferable then an uncertain pro-western one, not to mention Bejing's current concern over the constant trickle of Korean refugee's (which would likely turn into a flood in the event of sustained conflict) and it's general desire to safeguard its rapid economic and political growth by maintaining the status quo. South Korea has of late been making efforts to defuse the tense situation near the border, believing it has more to lose then gain by a regime change or sudden souring of relations with its neighbour. Japan, despite an apparently genuine desire to limit the excesses of North Korea remains apathetic towards actual conflict, and as for India it has little reason and no wish to jeapordise the tentative relationship shared with China.

Without committed and sustained support from other integral nations within the region, the US is simply not able to directly oppose North Korea at this present time.

(And that's ignoring the problems North Korea itself would pose to such an invasion, which while not insurmountable would be considerable)

Well... Erm, that turned into a slight of a rant. *smiles*

This is almost exactly the thinking JFK had with his approach of using green berets to fight the Viet Nam war (I'm sorry, I mean police action as he was treating it as a criminal offense). We all know how that turned out... Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[vandervalley]

Currently, the US Army is pretty close to over extended. For instance: The US Army is in no position to fight a war in Korea should one break out. So, should the US expand its army?

Actually there are currently about 100,000 US soldiers stationed in Far East. Roughly half of those in Okinawa, Japan and half in South Korea and other parts of the region. So I think there is more than enough to fight a war with Korea.

 

[klubbhead024]

Actually there are currently about 100,000 US soldiers stationed in Far East. Roughly half of those in Okinawa, Japan and half in South Korea and other parts of the region. So I think there is more than enough to fight a war with Korea.

You think 100,000 can take roughly 5,000,000? Keeping in mind that every male in N. Korea MUST serve in the military for a certain number of years, and can get called back at any random time. Sure it's not guerilla war anymore, but they have just as sophisticated technology, if not more so. So I say, until someone is a 100% threat to America... stay the hell at home!!

 

[Mr. Hair]

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Except that those two situations really aren't that similar, and most of the actual similarities that do exist have been caused by the current occupation.

 

[Booko]

I think today's militarism is less about national security and more about economics. The military and its ancillary industries account for a large proportion of GDP, and if you consider the indirect "cross-subsidies" from military to civilian R&D, an even bigger driver of technology and industry. In addition, the military and the defence industry act as major employers in many parts of the hinterland, sometimes acting as an employer of last resort in economically blighted areas.

Yes, well I do recall Eisenhower warning us against the military-industrial complex, now that you mention it...