Military size and transformation strategy.
Guard and reserve forces have been on active deployment for a long time. Some expect a “mass exodus” from the guard and reserves unless deployments can be shortened. There are also worries that the size of the active-duty military has not been increased, despite this being a time of war, and with threats such as North Korea potentially looming. Recently, Congressional legislation has been contemplated to increase the number of active divisions in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps. (*) I’m not sure why the Navy is not included. I imagine it’s because increasing the size of the Navy would mean building more warships, costing more money.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not support increasing the size of the active-duty military. His justification is partially on technical grounds. He is also planning to privatize many non-combat jobs in the military. Those military slots can then be re-filled with active-duty troops. In this way, the number of combat troops can be increased without increasing the number of servicemen and women. Rumsfeld is basing his non-support on moving to a partially privatized force. This may be dangerous. Privatized mail carriers, cooks, maintenance personnel and others are critical to the success of missions. Sometimes they will be called to enter deep into the heart of enemy territory. This was what Private Jessica Lynch’s 507th Maintenance company was doing when it was ambushed in Iraq. The rest is history. If the such companies had been civilian units during Operation Iraqi Freedom, numerous civilians could have responded to fear and refused to do their jobs. As civilians, its members could not be forced to enter combat zones. An unexpected walkout would negatively impact the success of the mission. Therefore, I am skeptical of Rumsfeld’s claims (†) that the overall number of active-duty troops can prudently be kept constant. An increase seems in order.