Do we need more soldiers in Iraq, and do we need a larger military?
As for Iraq, I’d say the answer is generally no, but only because the number of Iraqi soldiers and police is steadily increasing. Ultimately, Iraqis will have to choose their future, and really all the US can do is to keep it from being stolen by armed force.
But I do think we need a larger military. Part of the problem is the political decision made post-Vietnam to structure the Armed Forces to require reserves to be called up to fight any significant foe. I think we’re currently seeing the shortcoming of that restructuring. So I think we need to reverse that, and replicate a lot of the non-combat capability that is currently in the reserves in the standing army while keeping the reserves; a lot of the civil affairs, military police, and engineer type units. I think we have plenty of traditional combat power as is – in large measure because our advanced technology weapons provide a huge force multiplier in open combat. But that technology of destruction doesn’t do us much good in the non-combat or low intensity combat areas.
In addition to the increase above, we need an additional army division that would be a brand spanking new type: the urban division, specifically trained and equipped for combat and peace keeping operations in cities. To do it right, we need to start small and try out different tactics and equipment that are better suited to urban combat before we create the whole division. I find it interesting that almost all the elite, or at least non-traditional military units are essentially light infantry: special forces, the 10th mountain division, the 82nd airborne division, and the 101st air assault division. The urban division would be mostly light infantry, although it would need tanks, IFVs and artillery.
