GovernmentExecutive.com

The Bush administration's plans to significantly boost the size of the Army and Marine Corps will cost $108 billion over the next seven years, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report.

The hefty sum, which is roughly $4 billion lower than the Pentagon's own estimate, covers the full gamut of costs associated with a permanent expansion of the military's principal ground forces, including personnel, healthcare, operations, procurement and construction accounts.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who has questioned Pentagon officials on the administration's plans, sought the CBO cost estimate, making it a potential issue for the committee when members mark up the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill next month.

Though supportive of congressional efforts to grow the Army and Marine Corps, which have borne the brunt of the extended combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Levin has questioned Pentagon officials on whether the administration's plan may be too late and too costly to be worthwhile.

"The administration's proposal to increase the permanent end strength and structure of the Army is welcomed, although late," Levin told Army leaders at a hearing last month. "Had we started in earnest to grow the Army even four years ago, our forces today would be less stressed and more ready. We must guard against merely creating a larger version of a less ready force."

The White House, taking cues from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, consistently opposed bipartisan congressional efforts to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps over the last several years. It argued repeatedly that the president already had enough authority to adjust the size of the services to respond to emergencies and dismissed any required increases in so-called military end-strength as unaffordable.

But with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continuing to place heavy demands on military personnel with no immediate signs of abating, President Bush announced in January he wanted to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines to the active-duty services over the next five years.

This increase would be permanent, compared to Bush's plans for an immediate, but temporary "surge" of additional ground forces to Baghdad and Iraq's Anbar province. In addition, the military has proposed a permanent expansion of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard by another 9,200 soldiers.

For the active-duty Army, the substantial growth in its force will cost $76.3 billion by 2013, according to CBO, which released its estimates late Monday. The Marine Corps, meanwhile, will need $31.7 billion to cover the expansion in its force.

By 2014, the Defense Department will need another $14 billion annually to pay for the larger force, CBO estimated.

Gordon Adams, former OMB associate director of national security, said Tuesday that the growth of the ground forces is not needed and ultimately will "bleed the Pentagon dry."

"It will do nothing to alleviate force stress in Iraq, unless you assume we are there in large numbers for another three [to] five years," said Adams, now a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. "It is an expansion without a mission, thereby putting the expansion cart ahead of the strategic horse."

But Army boosters argue that ground forces will be deployed heavily for decades to fight the war against terrorism. Without a larger pool of soldiers and Marines to draw from for deployments, the forces will be stretched too thin.

The Army right now "does not have the resiliency or the strategic depth" it needs to meet constant deployment demands, said retired Lt. Gen. Ted Stroup, a vice president at the Association of the U.S. Army. "You need more brigades and you need more soldiers to man those brigades."

COMMENTS

• I thank SSA (DHS ICE) for a well reasoned and, apparently, knowledgeable response. As I’ve stated before, I can only offer my opinions based on my experiences and will bow to those whose experience and knowledge exceed mine. While high emotions are understandable, this reasoned discussion and exchange of perspectives and facts encourages me. I must admit that the final analysis of the two varied courses of action will be determined by either biased opinion, as many historical analyses actually are, or by the final results achieved, as they should be. So saying, IAW the latter, the jury’s still out. If our current expenditure of money and lives achieves more security and understanding among our allies and co-habitants of this fragile world, then I too will consider it a success. For now I must base my evaluations on the current level of our quality of life, our sense of safety, and it appears to be a net loss. Additionally, we do not yet know if this action will deter future atrocities by fanatics. If the past is any indication, that is not likely. If so, we would no longer have genocide, religious persecution, or any of the myriads of human faults that appear again and again through out history. Yes, the War-to-end-all-wars would have been the last. I suppose it may have been worth a try. I guess we had to try something different. I truly hope this works, that all those lives have not been in vain and money thrown onto the fire of futility. But, IMHO, those money and lives would have been better spent securing that walls of our homes, strengthening the bonds that tie us to the global economy, and proving tolerance and diversity are truly qualities to be cherished rather than fear, despised, and eliminated. Unfortunately, it may be my myopic view point from these near sighted eyes, because I just can’t see that as being the case; particularly as a result of our current foreign policy. Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted April 27, 2007 10:22 AM
• I was there for both the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and the attack on 9/11. From my perspective, as a federal agent for over 20 years, it was a mistake to treat the 1993 attack (by definition, an act of war) as a crime, and making a law enforcement response rather than a military one. Years of investigative work, and millions of dollars were spent convicting 10 terrorists, but it didn't stop the next attacks, let alone deter their colleagues. We suffered additional attacks in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the African embassies, and others despite the Clinton doctrine of treating terrorism as a crime, like bank robbery, instead of as a hostile act by enemies of the United States. He bombed Bosnia, which wasn't a threat to us, but neglected Bin Laden, other than sending a few cruise missiles against sand dunes and an aspirin factory. History will eventually judge both Clinton and Bush, both of whom made mistakes, but that is for the future, when people will have the ability to examine all of these events from a different, and more objective, perspective. GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2007 4:17 PM
• The military has always resembled a rubber band, expanding and contracting as external and internal forces pull at our nation. Presidents from both parties have responded to the cries of outrage from a public who saw little conflict on the horizon and less use for an armed and idle military. In my half a century of observations, I’ve only seen one president who increased the military budget in a time of peace. And, to be honest, I think Reagan was really using that expansion primarily as a means to stimulate the economy with his trickle-down economics. Regardless, our times of great military expansion were, historically, reactions to external aggression. Our greatest strength has always been our people and their ability to respond to need with dedication and productivity. Given a reason, we kick butt. Much has been said about Bill and his proclivity for world peace, and piece of tail; but please consider: The first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, also shortly after the investment of a new president, did not result in a misdirected, injust, and costly war (in both terms of lives and money) but the convictions of 10 military Islamic conspirators; each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years, and all within his term of office. Mr. Clinton did not pay for the expansion of the economy with a war-time budget, as did Ronny and Dubya, but presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget, a federal surplus, and the largest growth in the stock market’s history. Bottom line? He gave the people what they wanted; regardless of whom he diddled. Besides hating being lied to, I have a serious problem with a leader that when faced with the most egregious attack on American soil in history, felt the need to retaliate against someone and simple pointed at the most visible target. To compound the error, instead of listening to his experts (the military) and starting the process of rebuilding the military, he decided to totally reorganize it (twice) causing disorganization, confusion in doctrine and tactics, and the inappropriate reallocation of resources. Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted April 25, 2007 12:58 PM