More recently I've given the Pentagon the benefit of the doubt as it plans to add ten to fifteen more brigades within the force structure. Since this plan will result in more brigades at minimum than my call for more troops and perhaps double the amount, I'm willing to hold off on arguing for higher end strength to see how the Army does with this plan. Strategypage has some details:
As part of the major reorganization the U.S. Army has been undergoing for the last 18 months, it is using outsourcing and temps in a big way. As a result, about 20 percent of army troops are finding themselves getting moved, from civilian type jobs, closer to the fighting. The army is scrutinizing every job they have, and deciding which could be done by civilians. While the media reports a “recruiting crises” in the army, they are missing the real story of how the army is reorganizing so that it can get along without the people it is having trouble recruiting. The people who actually do the fighting continue to join up, and stay in. It used to be that most army jobs were, well, just government jobs. Once a year you might have to go to the rifle range, and a couple of times a year you might have to load gear on trucks and go “camping” (field exercises) for a few days. You wore a uniform, and saluted your superiors. Not a lot different than working for a major corporation, except the army had a better pension plan.Moving 20%, or about 100,000 troops, to combat units while replacing these troops with contract civilians is the equivalent of adding 100,000 new slots to the Army. It is easy for some hawks to argue that we need more troops either in Iraq or in the Army--or both, in order to burnish their independent credentials by criticizing the administration. Those who oppose the war in general can make this criticism too in order to appear tough.
But in reality, the Army is working to increase the result wanted--more combat units--by a method that is different than just adding to the old structure. Indeed, the effect of the Pentagon approach will result in twice the improvement that the results of those who want to add to end strength would achieve.
I'm willing to say I was wrong about adding end strength and give the Pentagon the chance to increase combat power their way. Perhaps I just don't feel the need to pose as a tough guy out-toughing the Pentagon.
I can always call for 40,000 new soldiers again if this path doesn't work.
