Senate votes to add 20,000 troops to Army

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/army.troops.ap/index.html

Senate votes to add 20,000 troops to Army

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defying the Bush administration, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to add 20,000 troops to an Army stretched thin by the war in Iraq and other commitments around the world.

The 93-4 vote in the Republican-led Senate -- following a similar action by the House -- reflected the anxieties lawmakers have been hearing from families of service personnel whose tours in Iraq keep getting extended and whose return to civilian life is repeatedly postponed.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the lack of troops at the end of major combat in Iraq cost the military an opportunity to stop the violence that continues today.

"We didn't have enough people on the ground, and now we are paying a very, very heavy price for that incredible mistake on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon of the United States of America," he said.

The increase was approved as an amendment to a $447 billion defense authorization bill. Under the proposal by Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, the size of the Army would increase by about 4 percent, to 502,400. Congressional aides estimated the cost at $1.7 billion.

Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, supported the amendment after it was modified to specify that the money would come from a $25 billion fund within the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan operations or from a future emergency spending bill.

"The Army needs this active duty strength. We are in agreement, I think, on this point," he said.

Army leaders oppose a permanent increase in troop strength, saying they can do the job with the current force once it is organized more efficiently.

The Army also had a higher cost estimate for the additional troops. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker told reporters this week it costs the Army $3.6 billion a year to keep 10,000 soldiers trained and equipped, and the Army would struggle if given thousands of extra troops without the money to pay for them.

"Congress can only fund us one year at a time," Schoomaker said Tuesday. "They can encumber us forever. We are very reluctant to be encumbered by more than is necessary."

Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved temporarily increasing in the Army's strength by 30,000 more than its congressionally authorized size of 482,400. Army officials have said that was necessary only so the Army could fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and reorganize at the same time.

As originally drafted, the Senate bill would have given the Army the flexibility to add 30,000 troops, but wouldn't have required it to do so.

The House version of the defense bill, approved last month, would add 30,000 Army soldiers and 9,000 Marines over three years.

The White House criticized the House provisions. "A mandatory increase would lack flexibility and could leave troop levels higher than needed, especially after several (Defense Department) initiatives to reduce demand on the force have had time to work," it said in a statement

Voting against the Reed amendment were Republicans Gordon Smith of Oregon, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Larry Craig of Idaho and Craig Thomas of Wyoming. Not voting were Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Republicans Robert Bennett of Utah and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he hopes the overall bill will be ready for final approval Tuesday. The House and Senate language will have to be reconciled before the bill is sent to President Bush.

[rfdc]

This is what I meant about not letting us down, when Ronald Reagan was President. He and Wineberger, like them or not, never shorted the forces needed to complete a job. Unfortunately for President Reagan, like Carter, he was experiencing the beginnings of a new kind of warfare tactic developed for underdeveloped nations.

Historians will point out that neither Clinton nor George W. Bush recognized quickly enough the predecessor's lessons nor did they capitalize on them or the left overs of George H. Bush.

All 3 left wounds openL: George H. Bush - not pursuing Sadamm till the end, Clinton, not putting the pedal to the medal on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and George W. Bush, not getting the max from his military leadership to give realistic numbers, timing and a corrupt CIA, which he let off the hook repeatedly.

"higher than needed??"

The body bag count continues, what soft as* reps for men we have in Congress!

[@DCGoldPants]

tell us how you really feel.

:gang:

[jenmdixon]

Just one question - where are the 20,000 recruits/soldiers/etc. going to come from?