The State of Ground Forces

According to this piece on downsizing our military, the Army will go down to 37 brigades in the active component--which is more than the 33 we had before 9/11. Plus the Ranger regiment. And special forces, which I assume are still on track for further expansion.

The Marines will go down to 8 regiments in the active component--which is the same as what we had before 9/11.

Keep in mind that our Army brigades are organized differently now. Then, almost all of our brigades fought as part of a division and they had three maneuver battalions, each having 3 maneuver companies.

Now our brigades are self-contained with the combat support units directly attached to the brigade rather than relying on the division. And the brigades have 2 maneuver battalions, each having 4 maneuver companies. Stryker brigades still have the triangular arrangement, if I recall correctly.

The Army says it may reduce the number of brigades further in order to increase the number of battalions in each brigade. I wouldn't do that. Having more brigades helps with rotations and provides a platform to add Army National Guard battalions right to the active brigade if we want more manpower. Plus, for high intensity warfare, the 2-battalion brigades will do just fine.

The Army and Marines will also retain NCOs and mid-grade officers to be able to add new units quickly. Which would also be a means to expand our brigades with new active battalions if we need them.

This isn't so bad--as long as the force structure is fully staffed and as long as nothing worse happens in the budget process. I never expected Army expansion to last forever once Iraq was concluded.

Still, never forget that this process is why we go to war with the Army we have and not the Army we wish we had when a crisis erupts.

UPDATE: Odierno says we may go down to 32 or 33 brigades by adding a battalion to each brigade. I think that is a mistake.

Two-battalion brigades with a recon element will do just fine in high intensity warfare (although I'd be happier to beef up the recon elements to more of an armored cavalry-type unit). And we'll have more brigades for flexibility and unit rotations. And if we need to beef up the infantry elements for counter-insurgency, we can build new active battalions with our extra NCOs and officers, add National Guard battalions, add Military Police battalions, or add allied battalions. The point is, we have many options for expanding our active component brigades if needed. But we don't have options for having more brigades in the first place--that takes longer to increase.

Also, the article explains the regionally aligned brigades which appear designed to take up some of the duties of training allied ground forces in order to free up our special forces from this traditional role in order to focus on anti-terrorism shooting missions. I hope these are separate from the combat brigades. At one point this seems clear, but when the article speaks of attaching one of our brigade combat teams to the NATO Response Force, it implies the opposite.

UPDATE: OK, let me reach back for a couple posts discussing the reorganization issue. See here and here. There are more links from the latter.