Is it true that up to a third (perhaps even more) of the US forces currently deployed in Iraq are from what we in Britain would call the ‘territorial army’? Is it really? I can’t believe, it seems so ridiculous. Not that I am proud of being ‘british’, by the way. I think we are well past beyond being just rubbish. Our great leader makes Bush look fine and noble!
Between 20% of the Marine force in SWAsia and from 25% to 42% of some Army commands on that theatre are made up of units from the Reserve and the National Guard (and you may have an actual warfighting brigade and their direct support be 90% Regulars, but the mail-sorting and truck-repairing units at Div HQ be 70% Reservists, and so forth). Then again, as mentioned by a couple of us earlier, this is part of the design of the military during the past generation; the formations’ full on-paper sustained-war strength is computed counting on use of reserves. What’s creating some concern and debate is if these computations really took into account situations like this, and can it be sustained (BTW in the absence of mandatory service, the prominent participation for the Reserves/Guard is IMO a healthy thing. Bring the reality home to Main Street and all that.)
Order of Battle for the Iraqui front.
You seem to be saying that this is good thing (in the absence of conscription). I do not agree. If the world’s most mighty power cannot invade and hold on to other regions, thousands of miles away, without calling up reservists(who are not the same as reservists in for example WW1), or national guard, is an admission of failure.
Professionals (in which term I include constripts who know they are in it for the duration)in the right numbers could do the job maybe, but not part-timers. It even seems to be worse now, than say Vietnam. I think it was a great mistake then to limit ‘tours’ to one year.
The mistake is compounded by using hordes of ‘private contracters’ as security. It does not seem to be working.
I hope I am wrong in saying all this. I realise this is not like the world wars, or Vietnam, but ‘westerners’ are also not the same. I think the extremists on the other side know this. Hitler thought that the Americans were ‘degenerates’ and not up to the job needed. He was wrong. Let us hope that the ones who fight America now are wrong in thinking this, but I am not optimistic about this.
Yours, CM Wood.
No, it’s actually a reflection of the standard established operational doctrine of the US Armed Forces ever since the mid-to-late 1970s, to wit that “full strength” = including Reserve/Guards units. Heck, even that is a return to the up-to-WW2 tradition of a smallish peacetime Army that expands from the militia in an emergency. It’ssupposed to happen that way, the problem arises over how many people it takes and for how long. Most of the mobilized component is the Guard and units of the Selected Reserve, who are equipped and trained on a regular basis (unlike the members of the ironically-named “Ready” Reserve, who may be recalled off Civvie Street even years after they thought they were done).
The military planners of the later years of the Cold War realized that under the all-volunteer force they could not possibly afford a force of Regulars, in both combat and support roles, large enough to deal with every last crisis that may arise at the same time, at least until the first fully-trained new draftees started arriving at the front. So entire important, working parts of the US Military are primarily made up of Guard and Selected Reserve. This was only exhacerbated in the 90s by urge to cash in a post-Cold-War “peace dividend” by going further into stand-down (Started by Bush-1, some units returned from Desert Storm just in time to furl the colors, completed under Bill C.).
Why many military/political commentators/philosophers prefer the high reserve participation in the military operations involves (a) a belief that it there would be a different political pressure put on a government tryng to justify a prolonged war if the impact is felt as a disruption of the life of Joe or Jane Middleamerican with a job and 2 kids, rather than just the life of 18-year-olds from less-than-advantaged backgrounds; (b) that it also helps put a brake on the coalescing of a “warrior caste” mentality among the Regulars by inserting into the system people who are not making a full-time career of it.