Are you actually a journalist?

The Army underwent an expansion after 9/11 when it became obvious that is was necessary to move the Reserve component from a strategic reserve to an operational one. Meaning that the Reserves had to be mobilized to meet the shortfalls in the active component caused by the reduction of the military after the collapse of the Soviet Union. There have been tons of arguments about who was to "blame" for this. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter, it is a fact.

After the expansion was approved and begun, the military needed both more recruits and higher retention initially as it was filling positions that did not exist prior to the expansion. We have now reached a steady state and some of the scheduled expansion has been cancelled due to cost. There is neither the same requirement for new soldiers nor the same rquirement for retaining serving soldiers.

For Kaplan's argument to be true there would have to be hollow units, as in the Carter years, throughout the military. Under Carter we had companies with two platoons instead of three and battalions with two companies instead of three. That is NOT the case today.

SLATE should really find someone better to fill Kaplan's role. It can't be that hard.

MIDAMER:

For Kaplan's argument to be true there would have to be hollow units, as in the Carter years, throughout the military. Under Carter we had companies with two platoons instead of three and battalions with two companies instead of three. That is NOT the case today.

This was also a major problem in the 80's and 90's when I was on active duty; while on paper our TO&E were full companies (3 line platoons and one HQ platoon), in reality we were lucky to actually ever have 2 full line platoons at most. This was always readily apparent any time we went through NTC/JRTC or deployed, when non-mobilized companies were always scavenged for extra troops.

The situation was significantly worse when I was in the Guard (I got out in 2003).

I have many friends and relatives on active duty and from what I've been told, there is still a lot of pressure for CO's to exaggerate their troop numbers and many units are grossly understrength.

Your whole premise pivots on the notion that the invasion of Iraq was both necessary and acceptable and hence the consequences of it should be addressed.

Reality is that the invasion was a fuckup. And hence to expand the long term strategic capacity of the military is a dubious choice. The fact that the military is possibly ramping down the steady state- shouild be something to consider.

An interesting argument burt as you well know, you cannot submit false reports about troop strength. It is impossible in the active component and would take dupicity at the state or TAG level in the Guard.

What?

Why the gratuitous insults, MIDAMER? Kaplan was pointing out a shortcoming in the story as reported by the mainstream media. I read the WaPo story and NYT summary, and did not see any reference to the Army's recruitment goals being met in an "historic" fashion as a result of lowering their recruitment and retention targets relative to previous years. By contrast, if Ford or General Motors had met their production targets as the result of lowering them, you can bet that we would have heard about it and about how it signaled decline. Your points seem to imply a deeper level of analysis, although you don't explain why we "have reached a steady state" in a climate where there are calls for more troops to fight the current wars. I found articles from 2006 which implies that "hollow units" were a problem then: <link> <link> Someone else has posted that hollow units may still be a problem. Neither of you supply facts to support your claims. Has the problem been solved in the past few years? Who to believe? I'm much less inclined to believe someone who can't make their points without also resorting to insults...

Thanks for your well written response. You saved me the effort and most likely a few gratuitous insults to Midamer too.

Where are the hollow units? Easy to answer. Name a division and a brigade. Easy. Right?

Your links are worthless. They talk to the reserve component which is , ready?, a reserve. Name an active duty hollow unit. Should be easy. Have at it.

I'm not in the Army and neer was, so no, it's not easy for me to name those units. I've heard stories from my nephew who is in the Army.

All I know is I spanked you royally on the Department of Energy's role in maintaining nuclear weapons. You crawled away with your tail between your legs. You couldn't even concede gracefully. So I view all you say with extreme prejudice.

WOW! You must really have some deep set insecurities. Spanked me? Apparently some odd sexual attitudes as well.