Go to contents

U.S. Military Build-up Becoming a Hot Potato

Posted August. 28, 2003 18:00,   

한국어

The U.S. weekly journal, Time magazine recently reported that the U.S. congress and the military community, in the wake of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, were raising their voices to build up U.S. military forces including those stationed overseas. In its latest issue on September 1, Time presented backgrounds and problems in detail of the controversial issue of military buildup as a cover story.

Controversy and the Background of a Military Buildup

According to Time magazine, it was the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gen. Peter Schoomaker who first made the issue public. During a hearing at the end of last month, he said “It seems that we need more military forces.”

Since the remark, it has become increasingly common for military leaders to talk about the necessity for a military buildup, reported Time.

This reflects the global environment in transition ever since the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Before the tragic event, reduction in armed forces had been a trend in the U.S. The U.S. military forces peaked at 3.5 million in 1968, when the Vietnam War was underway, and has consistently declined to reach 1.4 million as of today.

President George W. Bush, since inauguration, has continued the same stance in promoting “more swift, efficient, and flexible forces.”

Yet, the post-war developments in Afghanistan and in Iraq clearly demonstrated that winning a war with formidable combat strength armed with state-of-the-art weaponry has nothing to do with positioning the forces in the occupying nations.

As early as in May of this year, the U.S. Pentagon showed its confidence by saying that the nation would reduce its military forces stationed in Iraq to 300,000 by September. Currently, as many as 140,000 U.S. soldiers are positioned in Iraq, but they are still suffering from lack of personnel. A study shows that 137 U.S. soldiers have been killed by terrorists since the end of the war, which was one shy of the 138 who were sacrificed during the war.

Time pointed out that, as the Iraqi case showed, the U.S. requires more military personnel worldwide in order to continue its war against terrorism in the future.

Whether to Reform or to Build Up?

The U.S. public stance is that the current level of U.S. military forces is appropriate, but no one denies that there are problems in managing the overall forces, stationed in every corner of the world, reported Time.

The New York Times reported that U.S. Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld recently ordered to review measures to improve efficiency in managing the military, but the resulted reform measures are more likely to further deteriorate the already degraded working condition for soldiers, thereby impeding the build-up plan.

Can a change in U.S. foreign policies provide a solution?

Some point out that the core of the problems is missed at the controversy over beefing up the military forces.

Lawrence C., a high-ranking Pentagon official during the Reagan administration once said “It is wrong for the U.S. alone to plan to address the world‘s security issues, combined with terrorism, rogue states, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) all by itself” He also presented a good piece of advice, saying “A right solution to these issues is to collaborate with allies and gather support from the international community.”



Sung-Kyu Kim kimsk@donga.com