Recently questions have been raised about American military deployments and troops levels more specifically is America running out of soldiers? This is a good question [/b]Shortmanx5 stated that there are around 1.4 million Americans in uniform, 150,000 in Iraq. On the surface this does not look like much of a problem but, there are a number of facotrs which need to be considered regarding this question. Firstly only half of all soldiers are on duty at any given time. Next, South Asia, Japan and Korea accomodate almost 100,000 troops, Afghanistan another 20,000 plus, Europe perhaps as much as 50,000. North and South America, Africa and Australia the rest with the majority obviously being in North America. Are the American over stretched? It is hard to say with these numbers. On the surface it appears that international troop commitments only occupy about 370,000 soldiers (out of 700,000 on duty) at any given time, however, we do not know what other commitments are needed in North America itself for patrolling the borders, training etc...In the same light we do not know out of the 1.4 million how many are soldiers on the ground and how many are bureaucrats? -I once heard that Canada had the highest percentage of flag officers (generals and admirals) compared to the total size of its armed forces. - I think one thing we can assume is that most of the members of the Armed Forces over seas belong to the Army as it is the biggest of the three services, I would estimate at least 60% of the US armed forces of 1.4 million belong to the army, or 840,000. Divide that by 2 and you get 420,000 on active duty at any given time. Now how many of the 370,000 stationed over seas are army members I do not know but by looking at these numbers I would guess that they are running closer to their maximum capacity than one would think.
The question posed; "is the United States running out of troops?". The answer is no. However they are stretched to their worst point since Vietnam. Number, as more often than not, only tell half of the story. Yes there are indeed in the neighbourhood of 1.4 million "active duty" members of the U.S. military, and there are in the neighbourhood of 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, and 20,000 or so in 'Ghan. However what people often fail to realize is that those numbers are the actual troops "in theatre", not the support troops working behind the scenes. For example, Iraq. There is, as was pointed out, somewhere near 150,000 ground forces in Iraq proper, but that does not account for the land forces in Kuwait, Turkey, Oman, the UAE, etc etc. Furthermore it does not take in to account the Air Force support staff working at numerous bases throughout the Middle East, naval staff working on warships, or Marines that may be a part of a Marine Security Detatchment onboard a warship. All of these numbers add up, and while I am in no position to make a call on what the final count would be, I can assure you it would most likely match, if not exceed, the current ground strength in Iraq. Put this same rule in to effect with the contingent in Afghanistan and you can see where i'm going with this. Let us say for the sake of argument that the support troops and/or auxiliary (naval/marines) in the region equal the amount of ground troops deployed. For the War in Iraq the tally would come near 300,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen deployed, with Afghanistan having in the region of 40,000. We are now sitting at around 340,000 out of an aprox. 1.4 million. Lots left right? It gets worse. The U.S. has maintained a Division worth of troops in Germany, Japan, and Italy since the close of the 2nd World War. If my memory serves me correctly, around 80,000 troops are stationed in Germany, somwhere near 40,000 or 50,000 in South Korea, and another 40,000 or 50,000 spread throughout Japan. These forces are static, meaning that they are not eligable for long-term deployment. Yes the U.S. frequently deploys troops from their bases in Germany, however they try to avoid this as much as possible. With Korea and Japan, these troops are
NEVER deployed as an entity. Maybe small portions are deployed but, for example, the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division based in Seoul South Korea will never be deployed abroad. Do the math with me kiddies, we're looking in the neighbourhood of another 180,000 troops. We now sit at 520,000. Still not at half yet? No worries? Wait for it. So far we are at over a 1/2 million soldiers tied up. To this point we have not counted some crucial factors:
1. Troops preparing to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. Troops in the training system
3. Troops WIA
4. Troops stationed elsewhere
5. Most importantly; the actual strength of land forces
With #1 and #2, these soldiers are not available for additional taskings. Troops preping for overseas deployment are slated for duty and as such cannot be added to the national "force pool". The detract from the overall readiness of the military. Troops in training are simply a number. They serve no effective purpose as they lack the basic soldier skills to be effective even in a support role. A large chunk of the U.S. Forces "active duty" strength post 2003 is soldiers in or awaiting training.
Troops wounded in action are not removed from the "active duty" listing. Yes they are wounded, but they're not dead. PFC Bloggins who had his dick shot off in dirkastan is still being payed and as such remains on his units roster, albeit listed as WIA. To date around 20,000 U.S. service members have been WIA, they are therefore removed from the overall readiness of the military.
Troops that aren't a part of the U.S.' major deployments (Germany, Korea, etc) are still however in the same boat as the above mentioned. A great example of this is the U.S. Forces stationed in both Canada and the UK. There are literally thousands of U.S. service members either attach-posted to, or working with, Canadian units at various bases such as North Bay, Gagetown, Edmonton, and Ottawa. These members are occupying a role and therefore are removed from the overall readiness of the military. Some FYI; as of 2004 the U.S. had 11,000 soldiers stationed in the U.K. and an additional 2,900 stationed in Canada.
Lastly, the actual strength of the U.S. military's land forces. True the U.S. military may number 1.4 million, but how many of those are Army or Marines? The answer; less than 700,000. The U.S. Navy is over 350,000, as is the U.S. Air Force. Over
HALF of the 1.4 million serving members are
NOT ground forces. Granted there are Reserves, however less than 400,000 of these are ground forces, and most are not fully trained for overseas operations (National Guardsmen).
Is the U.S. military in trouble? No. Is it stretched badly? Very. With 150,000 land forces in Iraq and another 20,000 in 'Ghan, that works out to roughly 1/4 of their deployable land force. However as mentioned above, a large chunk of their ground forces are static and unable to deploy to the regions the U.S. currently occupies. When the numbers are crunched, the U.S. currently has around
HALF of their eligable ground forces deployed. No wonder their lads are burnt out.
