Do We Need a Bigger Military?

The Christian Science Monitor ran an article October 14 titled "Is US Fighting Force Big Enough?" This, of course, is a question asked by military analysts and policymakers in Washington all the time. We have seen significant fluctuations in force levels over the years, with a particularly sharp decline following the victory over Iraq in the first Gulf War.

The Army and the Marine Corps are both growing in size right now, but there are serious questions about whether or not the planned growth will be enough. General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, has said the United States is in a period of "persistent conflict," meaning there is no end in sight to American military commitments abroad. In short, we are going to be engaged in some sort of combat operations around the world for the foreseeable future. Growing the Army and Marine Corps is the current plan to address the continuing stress on the U.S. armed forces.

It all boils down to supply and demand. We only have so many forces available for worldwide deployment. The number of forces available will, of course, increase with the growth of America's land combat components. Still, even with the increase, our force levels are likely to be inadequate. Demand is the real issue. If we are indeed in a period of "persistent conflict," then Americans can expect the deployment of their military forces abroad, in combat, to be the rule rather than the exception. Are we as a nation prepared for this?

Our civilian leaders decide when and where American troops will be deployed, and at what force levels. Even as Iraq is growing stable to the point where American troop levels may be able to be reduced, there is a growing demand for more forces in Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban. If we meet that demand, we will simply be shifting location in the near future, but not reducing burden.

Reducing the stress on America's military forces can only happen in one of two ways: reduce our commitments overseas (reduce global force demand) or grow the military even more than is already planned.

We could, perhaps, reduce our commitments abroad. But there would be consequences. We would certainly have less influence in the world, and we would be less able to react quickly to emerging crises. Growing our force levels is only a realistic option to the extent that the Congress is willing to fund the increased costs associated with more personnel, more equipment, and more training.

Getting back to the original question, the answer is simply this: whether our military is big enough or not is entirely dependent upon how engaged our civilian leadership wants American forces to be around the world. There are two ways to approach this. First, the civilian leadership could be constrained by the number of forces available, letting supply drive the train. Or, supply could be adjusted to meet the level of commitment desired by the civilian leadership, letting demand drive the train. Either way, there is no escaping the relationship between the supply of forces and the global demand for those forces. Our next president will have to decide which route it is that he wants to take.