Search articles from thousands of Examiners
Write for us
Charlotte Politics Asia Policy Examiner
Asia Policy Examiner

Does the United States need a larger armed force?

July 4, 6:02 PMAsia Policy ExaminerMarc Seltzer
2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe


Get alerts when there is a new article from the Asia Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address


  Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use


flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/3522419464/sizes/s/

The new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, "take, clear and hold," uses Afghan national troops to maintain security after offensive coaltiion operations because there are not sufficient coalition forces to do the job. 

Operations in Iraq in recent years required extensions of deployments, recalls to active service and use of national guard troops, to maintain on average 150,000 forces in the field.  The U.S. undoubtedly lowered its commitment in Afghanistan in order to provide necessary force in Iraq without straining the services alarmingly. 

The failure to commit sufficient forces has consequences beyond the theater of operations as well.

During this same period, Iran and North Korea pushed forward with their nuclear development programs.  North Korea continues to test missiles and create regional instability in the face of unanimous United Nations security council sanctions.  Iran provides weapons and financial support to militant groups in Lebanon and shows no sign of compromise on its nuclear program. Such nations take action in opposition to U.S. national security policies with the likely confidence that the United States could not undertake another military campaign while at full capacity. 

Of course, the U.S. could undertake specific and limited military operations, but not a major campaign.  Military planners are reviewing defense strategy to incorporate what has been learned in the force-intensive and prolonged operatoins in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to access what we need to prepare for future conflicts.

It would take an act of Congress to substantially increase American troop strength.  Public resistence to military action and concern about the federal deficit may weigh against allocating funds for additional troops, but this is something the U.S. must do.  Showing those who pose international threats to stability and security that we cannot take military action, only empowers them.  Increasing the numbers in the forces does not require using them for offensive purposes.  It does, however, project our strangth through the potential use of force.  In the long run, this will avoid military conflicts and aid our diplomatic and multilateral efforts to maintain stability.

"U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Derrick Manuel instructs new recruits on how to prepare their gear for repelling at Victory Tower during basic combat training on Fort Jackson, S.C., Jan. 16, 2008 (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Micky M. Bazaldua) (www.army.mil)"    http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/2218952092/sizes/m/
For more info: 

Comments

Name:


Comments:
characters left

NOTE: Do Not Alter These Fields:

Recent Articles

Friday, July 3, 2009
The U.S.-led coaltion has embarked on a new mission in Afghanistan. The mission is to improve security through a "Take, Clear and Hold" …
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A great democracy is under threat. Despite the war in neighboring Afghanistan, growing extremism in the Northwest border tribal areas and occasional …

Things to see and do

Changing Places: From Black and White to Technicolor
08 Nov 2009 - 12 pm
Levine Museum of the New South
More art »
Ocean
Schiele Museum of Natural History & Planetarium