Posted on 06/17/2004 5:56:59 PM PDT by Libloather
Senate Votes to Add 20,000 Troops to Army
15 minutes ago
By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Defying the Bush administration, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to add 20,000 troops to an Army stretched thin by the war in Iraq and other commitments around the world.
The 93-4 vote in the Republican-led Senate — following a similar action by the House — reflected the anxieties lawmakers have been hearing from families of service personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended and whose return to civilian life is repeatedly postponed.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the lack of troops at the end of major combat in Iraq cost the military an opportunity to stop the violence that continues today.
"We didn't have enough people on the ground, and now we are paying a very, very heavy price for that incredible mistake on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon (news - web sites) of the United States of America," he said.
The increase was approved as an amendment to a $447 billion defense authorization bill. Under the proposal by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the size of the Army would increase by about 4 percent, to 502,400. Congressional aides estimated the cost at $1.7 billion.
Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., supported the amendment after it was modified to specify that the money would come from a $25 billion fund within the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) operations or from a future emergency spending bill.
"The Army needs this active duty strength. We are in agreement, I think, on this point," he said.
Army leaders oppose a permanent increase in troop strength, saying they can do the job with the current force once it is organized more efficiently.
The Army also had a higher cost estimate for the additional troops. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker told reporters this week it costs the Army $3.6 billion a year to keep 10,000 soldiers trained and equipped, and the Army would struggle if given thousands of extra troops without the money to pay for them.
"Congress can only fund us one year at a time," Schoomaker said Tuesday. "They can encumber us forever. We are very reluctant to be encumbered by more than is necessary."
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved temporarily increasing in the Army's strength by 30,000 more than its congressionally authorized size of 482,400. Army officials have said that was necessary only so the Army could fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and reorganize at the same time.
As originally drafted, the Senate bill would have given the Army the flexibility to add 30,000 troops, but wouldn't have required it to do so.
The House version of the defense bill, approved last month, would add 30,000 Army soldiers and 9,000 Marines over three years.
The White House criticized the House provisions. "A mandatory increase would lack flexibility and could leave troop levels higher than needed, especially after several (Defense Department) initiatives to reduce demand on the force have had time to work," it said in a statement
Voting against the Reed amendment were Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Larry Craig of Idaho and Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Not voting were Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Republicans Robert Bennett of Utah and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
On another amendment, Senate Republicans defeated a proposal by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., to roll back some of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to help pay for the Iraq war. A similar proposal by Biden was also rejected last year. The 53-44 vote was largely along party lines.
Biden said, "The idea that if we ask the wealthiest Americans among us to contribute to the war effort, the idea that they are unwilling to do that is preposterous."
But Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Biden's bill would hurt small businesses. "It's a tax increase during an economic recovery," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he hopes the overall bill will be ready for final approval Tuesday. The House and Senate language will have to be reconciled before the bill is sent to Bush.
Too busy talking to all those foreign leaders found on American streets? Time for Effin' Kerry to resign...
More troops is good, imho. Hopefully more teeth than tail.
Does congress have the power to force an increase in forces, or only the power to authorize and fund an increase in forces? If the former, this strikes me as regretable micromanagement from the kibbitzers; if the latter, then it does no harm.
I have two responses to this.
One: the generals in Iraq say they have enough troops. The idea that we're "stretched thin" is a myth put out by liberals and the media (but I repeat myself). Remember, these are the same people who gutted the military for eight years under Clinton.
Two: let's say we're stretched thin. Okay, let's reassign troops from areas where they just take up space to areas where they're needed We have troops deployed to, what, over 100 countries? Why the hell haven't we cleared out the base in Germany, for example?
ABOUT TIME!
Clinton's halving of the Army (active divisions) went well beyond the planned decrease as a result of the "peace dividend" resulting from the end of the Cold War.
Congress SHOULD act. The Army is not known for crying, but for "can do, SIR" -- and the Army only gets about 1/4 of the DoD budget. AF and Navy have professionalized the lobbying aspect of the military sphere -- while the Army worries more about the troops and the mission and has tended (given the political envrionment, perhaps too much) to be the light-weight in political maneuvering for money . . . as I read it . . .
ABOUT TIME!
Clinton's halving of the Army (active divisions) went well beyond the planned decrease as a result of the "peace dividend" resulting from the end of the Cold War.
Congress SHOULD act. The Army is not known for crying, but for "can do, SIR" -- and the Army only gets about 1/4 of the DoD budget. AF and Navy have professionalized the lobbying aspect of the military sphere -- while the Army worries more about the troops and the mission and has tended (given the political envrionment, perhaps too much) to be the light-weight in political maneuvering for money . . . as I read it . . .
Bears repeating, I guess . . . ;)
We really do not need more troops. This is an attempt by the Democrats to divert money from R & d and provurement programs.
The whole "stretched thin" business is just more electioneering.
"cleared out the base in Germany"
just WHERE do you presume the logistical support for Afghanistan and Iraq are coming from ???
Would you prefer supply planes driving across the Atlantic? Or maybe, from Ramstein??
Those Cold War inventory depots are being used for a real purpose . . . and Landstuhl Hospital, too . . .
It's fun watching the Democrats moves to the right.
From what I have seen we need more grunt battalions. In Iraq we are using people untrained in Infantry type stuff to make up for the lack grunts.
And I'm sure that all of the Senators voting "Aye" are tonight telling their sons to join up. Sure.
Bingo. We have more than enough troops in the US Army, what we lack is riflemen. But it is my understanding that the Army has taken a look at the MArine Corps and is in the process of changing their ways. Every man an 11B as a primary MOS is definitely a major part of the solution.
I am glad Kerry is earning his paycheck this week with the Senate deciding the future of our Defense.....
Kerry has only been on the floor of the Senate for one day this entire year.
We have some 70,000 in Germany... I am sure they wouldn't object being taken out of there...
... *sigh* Must I really explain this?
The phrase I used, "clearing out," was rhetorical and not literal. I understand that Rammstein is an important base with regards to WoT support. I do not advocate abandoning Rammstein (at least, not until we get a suitable replacement). I do, however, advocate taking unnecessary personnel from that base and putting them in another theater where they can be of better use.
Boy, and I thought sarcasm tags were too frequently seen here on FR... I guess now I know why they're so prevalent.
"need more grunt battalions. In Iraq we are using people untrained in Infantry type stuff to make up for the lack grunts".
1. Yes, active divisions were cut TOO far; with that, goes the active MP Battalions, etc.
2. Which means, more reliance on the reserves. That is for a purpose, to involve the American people in any extended deployment.
3. The Reserves as well as the active forces are too extended.
4. The Reserves, with adequate training and priority for equipment, can be good; but those without prior active duty experience (which, of course, many many reservists DO have) cannot be expected to bear the same burden equally on an extended basis as full-time professional forces.
a. Witness the reservist MP general and debacle the ENTIRE Army has been smeared with . . .
b. Witness the maintenance company decimated at the time Jessica Lynch was captured. Logistics units in the active force do not have the same priority for modernized equipment as the "grunt" units. AND reserve logistics units are at the bottom of the heap. Those trucks did not even have radios! Not even WW II level RADIOS! Same when I was on active duty in the 80s (hopefully better now) when I as co. cdr and the Recovery section had the only 2 radios in the entire heavy maintenance company! So if the convoy gets separated, and they have NO RADIO to reorient? Is it any surprise that they keep being lost and get ambushed and, with no armor and no heavy weapons, get decimated? And how can they do their mission with so many key individuals with extensive maintenance experience wiped out? And why don't the grunts care about rear security for the thin-skinned troops who support them -- even pulling their control point before the unfortunate "lost" convoy got there?
POINT: We need BALANCED forces. More $$ for grunts, without upgrading the active and reserve support forces, will end up with more horror stories, as above.
YES: more grunts. BUT not ONLY more grunts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.