Another Incoherent Policy Proposal: McCain Calls for Expanding Ground Forces by 200,000!

John McCain's comment on the draft should draw attention to one of his most jaw-dropping policy proposals. Last winter, John McCain in his Foreign Affairs article proposed expanding the ground forces by an additional 200,000 troops (ie That is 150,000 more than the current expansion target). McCain pledged:

"As president, I will increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps from the currently planned level of roughly 750,000 troops to 900,000 troops. Enhancing recruitment will require more resources and will take time, but it must be done as soon as possible."

This is a massive massive proposal that could not only blow a massive hole in the budget -- but would either require major cuts in the procurement of weapons systems or would require a significant increase in DoD's budget.

To be clear the ground forces are currently attempting to expand by about another 50,000 over current levels (roughly 700,000) to a total active force of about 750,000. A loose bi-partisan consensus emerged in favor of increasing the ground forces early in the decade. In fact, the Center for American Progress has argued for increasing the size of the Army since it was founded in 2003. But Rumsfeld resisted and it wasn't until Gates came in that the administration authorized a permanent expansion of the Army and the Marines by 92,000 bringing the total size of the ground forces to about 750,000. Obama has supported this expansion as well.

But there are two massive massive problems in increasing the size of the ground forces -- even by the currently proposed amount.

First, is the cost. Expanding the ground forces costs a lot of money because expanding requires not just paying additional soldiers and Marines, but procuring additional equipment to outfit them, as well as paying for the added benefits etc. The CBO estimated that increasing the ground forces to the current goal of about 750,000 would cost about $110 billion over seven years this is roughly $15 billion per year. Applying those projections to McCain's proposal - increasing the size of the ground forces over this same period would cost roughly an additional $25 billion per year. But even this number may be a conservative projection, since McCain is proposing a roughly 25 percent increase in the size of the ground forces and attracting that many more volunteers would likely require significantly more funding as more incentives will be needed to attract new recruits.

But the biggest difficulty in expanding the ground forces isn't cost -- it's getting the recruits. We are in the midst of an incredibly unpopular war in Iraq. The ground forces, especially the Army have struggled to meet both current recruiting goals and to maintain recruiting standards -- meaning any expansion while the U.S. is mired in Iraq will not only be very very difficult but could force the ground forces to further abandon their recruiting standards -- leading to a degradation of the overall quality of the ground forces. This very fact has led many expansion proponents to argue for a slow growth approach that does not compromise these standards.

It is important to note that this isn't some proposal McCain submitted 5 years ago. This was six-seven months ago in the article which he lays out his defining vision and goals for U.S. foreign policy. In short, you would expect that a candidate running for president would have THOUGHT THROUGH the ideas that he was espousing in the most influential foreign policy journal in the United States and would stand by them.

He therefore should be held to account for the implications of this proposal and the implications of this proposal are massive. Look at his website -- McCain calls for "modernizing the Armed services," which "involves procuring advanced weapons systems." He then also call for smarter defense spending. So if he is increasing the ground forces by 25%, and modernizing weapon systems, either we should expect a MAJOR increase in defense spending (which make his already bleak budget projections even worse) or he is talking about cutting many many weapons programs. Which is it? And what weapons programs are you cutting? Is he going to abandon recruiting standards?

Or is this just another case of John McCain having a completely contradictory and incoherent policy approach -- and this being the issue that he has most emphasized his knowledge and experience.

Comments

[itolduso]

Hey- let's call it what it is-McCain isn't looking to increase the size of the military. He's merely acknowledging the need to "replace" the soldiers that Bush & buddies destroyed in their poorly planned and executed oil grab. And he's underestimating the size of the need. Our current administration has taken the finest, most educated, best trained, all volunteer military force in history, and through policy & practice, that is- without question -the worst, most wasteful, most self-destructive use of personnel ('peacekeepers' in a civil war-will we never learn?)- they have left our country with insufficient forces to defend itself at home. This is the reality. Take a look at the few troops that are home between deployments. These guys are in trouble- increased suicides, substance abuse, anxiety, depression, and of course, the tens of thousands that return missing limbs and suffering from burns and debilitating head wounds. (funny how our wounded never make the news). McCain should not be allowed to call for more troops without being asked to explain why they're needed. Maybe then people can start realizing just how much damage Bush has done, and why we cannot allow 4 more years of the same wasteful stupidity.

[PioneerKing]

MAX:

Why aren't you questioning your brethren in the main stream media as to why they allow McCain to get away with such idiotic and unsustainable and untenable blatherings?

Dude your colleagues in the Main stream media would have spent weeks trashing Sen. Obama if he uttered half of the inanities that McCain says.

Max do your colleges not understand that their covering up the truth about McCain and giving McCain so much grace is the equivalent of what they did in the lead up to the Iraq war?
The main stream media has created and is perpetuating lies about McCain that will contribute to his winning the presidency.

Max are your colleagues in the MSM so bigoted that they would rather cover up McCain's gross incompetence and sell him as an experienced candidate that they are willing to allow the worst nominee to be America's next Commander in Chief? Are your colleagues in the MSM willing to turn a blind eye to the egregious duplicity of being front men for McCain.

[BARRISTER]

You know what? Americans must learn that the cost of Peace is 1/25 that of the cost of War. Instead of pumping all that borrowed money into implements of War, put it into im plements of Peace World wide. There will then be no need for Massive standing Armies.

[Robertx5]

Increasing the military from 700,000 to 750,000 will cost USD 15,000,000,000 per annum or
USD 300,000 per person per annum.
The current military budget gives you circa 700,000 personnel for USD 500,000,000,000 or roughly USD 700,000 per military personnel.
Look on the bright side - If you have a bigger war needing more troops, on the dollar cost averaging system you will get more personnel for your buck.
Or should the question be, why is it you get so little for all those bucks already??

I hope my math is right.

[timothyi]

It's part of the strategy of pandering to every possible interest group. There doesn't have to be any coherence or logic to the policies, because the MSM never provides any overall analysis or thoughtful reporting. It allows McCain to have a position on everything: when he talks to his base, he wants more soldiers and offshore drilling. When he talks to environmentalists, he's against global warming. When talks to evangelicals, he's against abortion.

He's not held to any standard of consistency or logic, so his positions don't have to hang together or make sense as a whole. Therefore he gets to claim whatever position he wants, depending on his audience that day.

On the other hand, if there is an inconsistency in anything Obama says, he is imediately called on it.

Teflon John McCain, the MSM's gift to America.

[starboymikey]

Only way to do it is with a draft. Only way to make a draft fly with the American people is another war, perhaps started by another attack on U.S. soil.

A very valid point is that McCain's proposal will cost a mint, which would have to mean a large tax increase. Combining a draft with another round of tax cuts would be the greatest folly imaginable.

George Bush once said that the most important thing the government could do in times of war was to provide large tax cuts. This neo-con thinking is contrary to all logic, even standard conservative logic.

During WW II the marginal tax rate on incomes over one million or so per year was raised to over 90%, and it wasn't until the late 1950's when the war was finally paid off, that tax rates started coming down. Of course, one million dollars was a lot more money then, perhaps close to ten million in constant dollars. But the point is that the wealthy were asked to sacrifice for the country that had given them so much opportunity. Our current administration requests sacrifices chiefly of the poor and middle class.

[hopeless277]

They should elect me! I propose that all Americans will be millionaires and live to be 100. Oh, and a unicorn in every pot.

[laocoon]

I think that if we must be a as strong as we possibly can be then it seems to me everyone should be in the military and our GNP should be 100% devoted to the military. All military all the time or we are not at our maximum level of security.

[texanna]

Three words, folks -- down ticket elections! Or, translated, find and elect Congressional Representatives and Senators who want to, and I'm stealing completely here, shrink the MCI until you can drown it in a bathtub. And, who want to stop increasing the size of the military, because the only reason for a large military force is for war after all. And, who would rather put the billions that the Dept of War gets into things that would really benefit and ensure the continuance of this country -- like infrastructure, education, health care for starters.

[demockracy]

The military has cost us trillions over the last few decades (notice how "peaceful" we are now?).

In fact, the U.S. currently spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined -- yet *neither* candidate is calling for dismantling the military-industrial-prison-media complex. Obama too has previously called for a larger military too (see here:http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/27/bigger_army/)

So let's not get our panties in a twist just because Grampy McSane calls for a bigger military. It's going to be up to the public to let their sentiments be known, not these pseudo-candidates, who will continue to represent the oligarchs who got us where we are now, with rather modest exceptions.

Naturally, only Nader, and Kucinich before him, is unambiguous about this.

[tcagle]

Fix America, assholes, then you can worry about being the world's police.

[loislane88]

Brilliant.