“Our assessment of security trends points strongly to the conclusion that the future mix of missions facing U.S. forces will call for greater flexibility and agility,” the draft document states. “By FY13 the Army will convert a heavy brigade combat team to the Stryker configuration. As resources become available, [DoD] intends to convert several more BCTs” to the medium weight, rapidly deployable Stryker model. Currently, the Army has seven Stryker BCTs, six active and one National Guard. The service would add up to four more Stryker brigades in the future, according to the draft QDR report.
With precision air and artillery available to take on any heavy armor we might face in the future, and the need to fight the insurgencies in Afghanistan for years to come, it is surely fine to reduce our heavy armor for Stryker units with their large infantry component.
But to argue that these units are more strategically mobile than a heavy brigade is ridiculous. Sure, we could deploy a Stryker battalion by air faster than a heavy battalion; but once you are talking a brigade, there won't be enough airlift. The brigade will go by sea and when that happens the heavy brigade arrives at the same speed as a Stryker brigade. So don't get the fantasy in your mind that Stryker brigades will be flying around the globe, saving the day.
In another issue, the review will recommend keeping four brigades and a corps headquarters in Europe:
The QDR also will stress the importance of maintaining a robust U.S. military presence in Europe.
“Subject to a review of NATO’s Strategic Concept and an accompanying assessment of U.S. military requirements in Europe, retain four Brigade Combat Teams and an Army corps headquarters forward-stationed on the continent,” the draft states.
This will help “deter political intimidation of allies and partners, promotes stability in the Aegean, Balkans, Caucasus, and Black Sea regions, demonstrates U.S. commitment to NATO Allies, builds trust and goodwill among our nations, and facilitates multilateral operations in support of mutual security interests both inside and outside the continent,” the draft states.
Good. I've long held we need a relatively robust presence in Europe. (And sorry, the link to my Military Review article in that post is now dead. MR may fix that given time.)
