Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces January 28, 2005
Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:
The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.
So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary (DRAFT, Only Congress has this authority) to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.
There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.
The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces (VIA THE DRAFTING OF CITIZENS) of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.
Respectfully,
Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka
Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg R. James Woolsey
Maybe Congress should actually declare a war before instituting a draft....talk about putting the cart before the horse....hopefully someone can see through this in Washington....
It will never happen in today's environment.
However, if there is another 9/11 type incident within our borders, all hell will break loose. Again, there will not be a need to draft. Many will simply sign up to do their duty as we have done throughout history. There is no shortage of heros in America.
A friend of mine, out of the service for over three years, received notice to report to New York in 6 months for 15 months of re-training and then deployment in Iraq.
Every one that I know who has served during this 'war', including those who saw action on the front lines in Iraq, agree that there is a back-door draft going on.
Looks like that exit strategy won't be implemented anytime soon.
But at least Iraq has elections! Woo-hoo! Good thing big business doesn't stand to gain anything in all of this...
Yeah, my cousin is going back again, they really don't have enough people so they're doing all sorts of voodoo with extended tours and calling up the senior homes to get people over there.
The American people voted Bush back in, knowing full well his record for starting wars and sending people off to fight in foreign lands. So how come there's a need for a draft, or all this underhand treatment of those already enlisted. Surely republican voters are falling over themselves to sign up?
The letter means nothing, I only recognized 2 of the people who are at the bottom of the letter. Now if the CURRENT generals say they recommend a draft that would be different. But the current generls are not.
I expect that if the military wants more people they could up the incentive in the form of a "Sign On Bonus". How many young folks would they get with a sign on bonus of say $5000.00 or maybe even $8K or even $10k. With the war in Iraq winding down I'll bet a ton of kids would sign up.
The thing about the back door draft is that it gives them the ability to keep or bring back TRAINED individuals. The draft would only bring in UN-TRAINED kids and would take a good 2 to 4 months to get up to speed.
Heck, I think you mean weeks of training not months. Not even I had 15 months of training and I was in a very high tech field. You are talking about 21 months total and we will be mostly out of Iraq by then.
My one brother might have to go back, get the back draft thing.
He fought in the main war, kicked some butt, came home, still on active duty, but does state side stuff.
I think he wants to go back.
But see, he didn't do a full year over there, I don't remember exactly, but he went over fought, came home. I think he was there for a total of 5 or 6 months.
It wasn't like Vietnam, where they did a year, then could go home.
Tour of Duty they called it, I think.
Anyhow, I dont' know if my bro is the norm or not.
The other brother didn't fight in the main war, was over in Korea, and then went to Iraq later on.
He was only over there about 6 months it seems like.
Plus, they are Marines, so that may be different from the army.
I don't see another draft happening, unless we get in another war.
Iraq is winding down, it's still dangerous as ****, but the Iraqi's will slowly take over on there own, and more and more of our troops will come home.
We go into Iran, Korea, or syria, and yeah, we might have a draft.
But like USA1 said, we get an event like 911 again, or if North Korea wigs out and attacks us, then we won't need a draft, they will be lined up around the block to sign up.
Heck, I think you mean weeks of training not months. Not even I had 15 months of training and I was in a very high tech field. You are talking about 21 months total and we will be mostly out of Iraq by then.
My friend said months. It's only 15 months total... he doesn't have to report until 6 months from now.
The thing is, they want him to be totally re-trained in a new field to be deployed specifically in Iraq. I figured we'd be out of there, too. Looks like the military might be thinking different. Oh, and his wife is getting called up as well.
