There is a growing dissonance between what the candidates are saying before the election and the developing facts on the ground in violent conflicts around the world in which the U.S. is deeply engaged militarily. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are intensifying, casualties are mounting, and the security situations are deteriorating.
In Iraq alone, the average number of daily attacks by insurgents has almost quadrupled from 22 to 87 over the past 12 months (Washington Post, 9/23/04). Insurgents are now estimated to number more than 20,000, up from estimates of 5,000 not long ago (UPI, 9/15/04). The inhumane abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces and the mounting toll of Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed or injured by U.S. forces have generated rising opposition to the U.S. occupation and have fueled the growing insurgency. The U.S. no longer controls large areas of the country and many cities. Reconstruction efforts have ground to a halt. The CIA forecasts continued high levels of violence in the months ahead and warns that the conflict in Iraq could turn into outright civil war.
The conventional military wisdom says that to prevail an occupying power needs to field a force at least 10 times the size of a guerilla insurgency. "The multiple is based on the British experience in Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century as well as France’s civil war in Algeria (1954-62), when nationalist guerillas were defeated militarily, but won the war diplomatically. France deployed half a million men to defeat the fellaghas in Algeria" ( UPI, 9/15/04).
Just in Baghdad alone, where the population is roughly 5 million, 55,000 troops have been deployed, producing a ratio of 11 troops per 1,000 population. To match this ratio in cities across the whole country, the U.S. and its allies would need to deploy more than 240,000 troops in country. To match the British experience in Malaysia and Northern Ireland at 20 per 1,000, 480,000 troops would be needed, which is the total authorized strength of the active U.S. Army. Clearly, any of these levels are impossible to sustain given the demands for and on people.
Today, the U.S. and its allies have about 160,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, of which about 140,000 are U.S. Thus, from a military, war-fighting perspective, a minimum of 40,000-80,000 more troops would be needed to meet the minimum requirements for an effective counter-insurgency war. Tens of thousands more would be needed if the insurgency continues to grow, as seems likely, and tens of thousands more would be needed to allow for periodic troop rotations.
Iraqi troops are not likely to fill that gap any time soon. In the best of conditions, it takes time to build an effective, disciplined army. But the conditions in Iraq are far from optimal. Hundreds of police and military recruits already have been killed by insurgent attacks, hindering recruitment and causing many to desert. Jessica Matthews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, observes: “The most difficult and important step will be to admit as fiction the idea that barely trained and outgunned Iraqi forces, far too few in number and often directed by foreigners to kill compatriots, can control Iraq’s spiraling violence anytime soon. More U.S. forces are needed, and needed back in the streets. There is no realistic alternative” (Washington Post, 9/23/04).
Nor are other countries likely to fill the gap – regardless of the diplomatic skill of the next president. The voters in those countries will not allow it.
Thus, the burden of providing security in Iraq is likely to remain with U.S. forces indefinitely.
But the Army and Marines are already stretched thin. More than 335,000 reservists already have been called up for duty at home and abroad since 2001. In November 2003, a Congressional Budget Office analysis indicated that "the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size [150,000] beyond about March 2004, if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief – an assumption consistent with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) current planning."
Since then, the insurgency in Iraq has grown, and the Pentagon has changed its plans. "Stop loss" orders have prevented as many as 40,000 troops who have fulfilled their tours of duty from returning home from Iraq and leaving the service; they are being ordered to stay on for extended tours involuntarily. More National Guard and reserve units are being called up. Over the summer, the Army even called up 5,600 soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve – a pool of inactive former soldiers many of whom are retirees.
At a recent Senate hearing, Sen. John McCain (AZ) observed, "It’s clear, at least to most observers, that we don’t have sufficient personnel" (Bloomberg News, 9/24/04). The Pentagon’s Defense Science Board reportedly has concluded that the U.S. cannot fulfill its current missions around the world without a significant increase in the size of the armed forces (Financial Times, 9/27/04).
If the U.S. military does not have the manpower it needs for current missions, what will this mean for future missions that the military may be called upon to carry out? Time magazine reports (9/13/04) "a leading Pentagon hawk recently hinted that the doctrine of pre-emptive war could soon apply to potential new targets. During a private Aug. 19 conference call with Capitol Hill aides from both parties, sources say, senior Pentagon policy official William Luti said there are at least five or six foreign countries with traits that 'no responsible leader can allow.'"
Despite claims by the Pentagon and military recruiters that they are meeting their recruiting goals, there is growing evidence to the contrary. The Army Reserve failed to meet its enlistment goal in 2003. A survey by Stars and Stripes of 2,000 troops in Iraq found that half did not plan to re-enlist after their tour was complete (a relatively high rate of attrition). Were it not for the stop-loss orders now in effect, some units would have lost 25 percent of their strength by now (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2004). The Army’s delayed entry program – the pool of enlisted recruits awaiting entry into boot camp – has shrunk by about one-third below the Army’s normal goal (Washington Post, 7/22/04). Apparently, many potential recruits are turned off at the prospect of serving extended tours in war zones (AP, 9/23/04). Jonathan Alter reports that Army National Guard enlistments are down 12 percent, and, alarmingly, there have been reports of soldiers being coerced to reenlist under threat of being shipped to Iraq if they do not sign up again (Newsweek, 10/4/04 issue).
To address lagging recruitment, the military is hiring more recruiters and spending more for each recruit. The average cost of recruiting an enlistee (advertising, signing bonuses, and incentives) increased 65% from 1990 to 2003, from $8,100 to $13,300 (GAO, 9/19/03). Soldiers in Iraq are being offered $10,000 to re-enlist, and active duty personnel from the Navy and Air Force (which are downsizing), whose tours of duty are complete, are being offered significant cash and other incentives to change uniforms and enlist in the Army for another tour.
President Bush promises to “Stay the Course” in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has agreed to increase U.S. troop strength temporarily by 30,000 through stop-loss and by calling up extra reserves and National Guard. Yet this still would fall short of the minimum number that military planners say is needed just for Iraq. Will the Pentagon conclude that these 30,000 troops are enough to "stay the course"? How long will they be needed? How many more will be called up to deploy to other simmering conflicts?
Candidate Kerry says he will fight the wars in Iraq and on terrorism differently, but how? He says he will increase the size of the active duty Army by 40,000 and seek 20,000 troops from allies to replace U.S. troops in Iraq. But there is little chance those allies will be convinced to increase their troop levels in Iraq by any U.S. president. And, where will the 40,000 new U.S. troops come from?
In short, from a war-fighting perspective, there is no end in sight to the military manpower demands in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global "war on terror", and possible military confrontations with Iran, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, and China (over Taiwan) loom on the horizon with current trends in world events and provocative U.S. foreign policies. Pentagon planners may soon find themselves hard-pressed to put enough boots on the ground with the all-volunteer force. The resumption of the draft seems increasingly likely.
FCNL maintains its longstanding opposition to military conscription and compulsory national service. Military conscription is an integral part of the war system, whose ultimate intent is the destruction of human life, and compulsory national service is a form of involuntary servitude. Both are deeply abhorrent to our religious values.
The military draft is not the way to bring about the end of war, as Congressman Rangel (NY) and other well-meaning members of Congress have suggested. Instead, we call upon Congress to redirect the tremendous human and material resources now devoted to war and preparing for war to addressing the root causes of violence, building cooperative, international institutions to peacefully prevent deadly conflicts, and to advancing human security in all its dimensions.
Further, it is time to end the economic draft that is now underway, which draws so many youths from our poorest communities into military service in search of educational and economic opportunities. Our country can and should do better at providing equal opportunities for all of our youth to fulfill their human potential without being forced into military service due to economic necessity.
Finally, we recognize the importance of service to our communities, and we encourage all to serve. But it must be voluntary and an expression of individual conscience – not compelled by the state. Compulsory national service would threaten our basic liberty and undermine the very principle of voluntary service to community.
FCNL advocates for an end to compulsory registration for Selective Service, for an end to all civil and criminal sanctions (such as denying federal education grants or drivers licenses to those who do not register for the draft), and for the repeal of the Selective Service Act.
