Grow the force
Kevin points out that we need to either send more troops to Iraq to butress the force there for victory, or withdraw, but instead we do neither. That's the politically safest and most craven course. Disagree or not with Democrats who favor withdrawal, at least they are standing by their convictions. "stay the course" isn't a plan, its the lack of one.
But even beyond Iraq, it's clear that we do need to have a military capability - in terms of boots on the ground - that can handle Iraq-level stress without falling apart. Maybe more. The world is full of Darfurs and Lebanons and the United States can best play a role by commiting the best resources we have - trained, expert troops. We need more troops overall, not just for Iraq but for the entire century ahead.
And the truth is that we don't need a draft. How quickly we liberals seem to forget the GI Bill's legacy - the vehicle by which millions of households were lifted into the middle class. "Growing" the troops, rather than "building" them (by draft) or "straining" them (by staying the course), is what is needed. We need a new GI Bill for the 21st century to get back to the troop levels we were at during the Cold War - but a different kind of force, than the dogged one-threat focus of the past.
Here's what such a proposal would look like.
- Financial incentives. Signing bonuses, increased salary at all levels. Guaranteed benefits under the same plan that our Senators and Representatives get. Increased funding for the VA, including more funding for mental health.
- Raised standards. Go after the cream of the crop. Recruit professionals too, with graduate degrees, so that we can build up the tail of the force, not just the tooth.
- Emphasis on MP-type training, even for the common infantryman. Given that counterinsurgency will be our primary challenge in every deployment for the forseeable future, we need every soldier to be an MP in a limited sense.
- Reduce the commitment. Make a minimum two-year tour be an option. That way the voluntary nature of the force is preserved and emphasized - and easy to "try it out".
"Grow the force" should be the rallying cry.
But even beyond Iraq, it's clear that we do need to have a military capability - in terms of boots on the ground - that can handle Iraq-level stress without falling apart. Maybe more. The world is full of Darfurs and Lebanons and the United States can best play a role by commiting the best resources we have - trained, expert troops. We need more troops overall, not just for Iraq but for the entire century ahead.
And the truth is that we don't need a draft. How quickly we liberals seem to forget the GI Bill's legacy - the vehicle by which millions of households were lifted into the middle class. "Growing" the troops, rather than "building" them (by draft) or "straining" them (by staying the course), is what is needed. We need a new GI Bill for the 21st century to get back to the troop levels we were at during the Cold War - but a different kind of force, than the dogged one-threat focus of the past.
Here's what such a proposal would look like.
- Financial incentives. Signing bonuses, increased salary at all levels. Guaranteed benefits under the same plan that our Senators and Representatives get. Increased funding for the VA, including more funding for mental health.
- Raised standards. Go after the cream of the crop. Recruit professionals too, with graduate degrees, so that we can build up the tail of the force, not just the tooth.
- Emphasis on MP-type training, even for the common infantryman. Given that counterinsurgency will be our primary challenge in every deployment for the forseeable future, we need every soldier to be an MP in a limited sense.
- Reduce the commitment. Make a minimum two-year tour be an option. That way the voluntary nature of the force is preserved and emphasized - and easy to "try it out".
"Grow the force" should be the rallying cry.
Comments