Counterinsurgencies require more troops

Jack Kelly:

...

Counterinsurgency is by its nature manpower intensive. A large number of troops is required to maintain presence in contested areas. And because insurgencies tend to go on for a long time (the average length in modern times has been about seven years), troop units need to be rotated in and out.

The president's remarks indicate he understands the war on terror is going to last a long time, and that more of its battles will resemble those we're fighting now than those we fought in the spring of 2003.

Since it would take about two years to recruit, train and equip additional brigades, expansion of the Army and Marine Corps comes too late to influence the decision the president is contemplating to "surge" U.S. troops in Iraq.

An American Enterprise Institute study directed by retired Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane and former West Point professor Frederick Kagan recommends temporarily increasing U.S. troop levels by five to seven brigades to secure contested neighborhoods in Baghdad and Ramadi.

The main reason why there has been no troop surge in the past is because neither Secretary Rumsfeld nor the senior generals he chose were in favor of it. Gen. John Abizaid, the Centcom commander, and Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, think our primary mission should be training Iraqi security forces. Gen. Keane and Dr. Kagan think it should be protecting Iraqi civilians.

But our strategic options in Iraq have been limited by the relatively small size of the Army and Marine Corps. Some think the size of the surge recommended by Gen. Keane and Dr. Kagan is too small to accomplish their goals. But it is the utmost our overstretched forces can muster.

A better strategy will improve our prospects for victory. But the best strategy won't work unless we provide our troops with the resources required to execute it.

...

Currently, we spend about 3.9 cents of every dollar our economy produces on defense. In Jimmy Carter's first budget, we devoted 4.7 percent of GDP to defense. In Bill Clinton's first budget, we spent 4 percent of GDP on defense.

...

I think even the Democrats recognize the need for a larger military, even if they will not admit that the Clinton cuts were a huge mistake. The Bush administration's five year wait was also a critical mistake, but it is time for both parties to move a larger military.