I've been curious about this for some time. Current total size of the US army is about 500,000 soldiers. Approximately 105,000 army soldiers are in Iraq, 15,000 in Kuwait, and 16,000 in Afghanistan. Additionally there are about 37,000 in S. Korea and others deployed in Europe. Approximately 90,000 army soldiers are deployed as institutional (training, deploying, supporting soldiers, etc. Of the total 1/2 million, approximately 195,000 have been deployed once to Iraq and 98,000 more than once to Iraq. ( I pulled these figures from a USA Today article with figures coming from the Defense Department.) Of further interest, total army size was about 1/3 bigger in 1991 during Desert Storm. Total army size hit just under 1.5 million during Vietnam (when there was a draft) and above 8 million during WWII. Over the last couple of years there have been continuous commentary about needing lots more troops in Iraq to quell the disturbances with some commentary suggesting 2-300,000 troops. Most recently, McCain suggested sending an additional 20,000 troops (not designating army/marines) etc. With these limitations it is no wonder there are constant calls on the Reserves. Most recently Marine reserves were called up for the first time. Current plans see an army redeployment providing for 50,000 more army troops available for combat by 2011. This would be accomplished by replacing various support jobs with civilian personnel. It would seem to me that the Bush administration seriously underestimated the long term war impact in Iraq and is putting us in a situation of stressing the American military. Over the last few years even as there have been cries from some for significantly more troops in Iraq, Bush has continuously said that the military isn't asking for more troops. I think that is hogwash. Whether the generals are asking for more troops or not...we have severe limitations on sending troops there. This is what is driving both significant call ups for reserves and the stories of troops being forced to have both extended stays and multiple stays. I saw some references to studies on this in 2004 and Congressional inquiries. Now its 2 years later and staffing numbers haven't changed dramatically with the on-the-ground situation worsening...and little realistic visions of it improving. Frankly, I don't think we have gotten the real story on this from the administration....and continuing on the same path only puts further stress on the military. In my mind this is one of the significant untold and underreported stories but has potentially horrible consequences both on current and near term future military capabilities but also in the event of another crisis. While the administration claims that it is being tough on terrorists and fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq, the simple fact now is the military is there getting shot at by Jihadists and in the midst of a civil war. Ultimately it leaves us vulnerable for any other military action that would require considerable ground forces. If there was a current war with N Korea and/or Iran the US doesn't have the current ability to put significant forces on the ground. Far as I can see this war is making the US more vulnerable to terrorism not less.
Yes this war has fuelled terrorism and we wont see the consiquences for another 10 years yet. Bush will eventually cut'n'run.
your right Mix, i keep forgetting about the absolute lack of terrorism against the USA until we invaded Iraq.
One report from earlier this year pointing to this issue, the problems it is creating, and the secret nature of the staffing issue, that has limited discussion on the topic. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15138504.htm