With an Iraq troop reduction and additional soldiers being added, where will they all go?

With the American military stretched thin with deployments in Iraq (150,000 troops; see this article) and Afghanistan (30,000 troops), the addition of 92,000 more troops to the military seems to make sense (Defense Secretary Gates recommended this increase in January of 2007; see his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee). But with the likely drastic draw down of the American military presence in Iraq as the Obama Administration takes over (and the Iraqi government demands it), and even with the proposed escalation of 30,000 or so troops in Afghanistan, a question that does not seem to be discussed is what will the US do with all its newly deployable -- but not deployed -- soldiers?

Troops by the numbers: What to do with all the soldiers post-Iraq?

Currently, the Army has about 546,00 active duty troops today while the Marine Corps has around 199,000 active duty Marines (see the 10/08 Armed Forces Strength report from the Pentagon; these numbers do not include reserve soldiers and Marines). Assuming in a few years a force of 60,000 troops (see remarks by Admiral Mullen in this article) in Afghanistan and perhaps 10,000 in Iraq (see this New York Times article that estimates that number), the US will have thousands of more troops that are not deployed but are based largely at home. Doing some math, there would be roughly an additional 202,000 more available than there are today.

While many are and will still be deployed abroad in other bases and hot spots, without another major conflict, these troops will most likely be residing in US bases. Certainly, for soldiers that have faced extreme deployments -- the Army upped its active duty tour to 15 months due to personnel shortages -- and multiple deployments in quick succession, this addition of soldiers will be appreciated. The stress of deployment will be decreased with shorter tours and the time between tours will benefit the individual soldiers (more time with their family) as well as the military in general (allowing for increased training and rebuilding of units and refurbishing equipment degraded over long deployments). But the soldiers will need places to live, training, updated equipment, and things to do.

While it is a good idea to have a large, trained, and tested military that can deploy relatively quickly in case new conflicts break out, it is tough to think about how they will be used and where. For example, should the Pentagon plan for a major clash with Iran, more counterinsurgency operations in third world countries, or a full scale battle with probably the only remaining superpower (China) that can challenge the US? In addition, and perhaps more important, how will the country pay for them?

More troops in the face of an expected defense budget cutback

While security considerations are critical, the reality is that as the recession continues and the US debt grows well over $10 trillion, the country can't afford to do everything with its armed forces that leaders in the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House may want. Already, while there is still support for troop increases, there is considerable talk about cutting military spending. Often cited weapons systems on the potential chopping block are the expensive F-22 stealth fighters for the Air Force, the troubled Osprey plane-hybrid aircraft the Marines are deploying, and the Virginia-class attack subs the Navy is building. Other cuts are discussed. For example, some have said the Navy should reduce its current aircraft carrier fleet from 11 to 10 (for more on possible cuts, see this New York Times editorial). And on top of this, there are several military programs the Pentagon still must undertake, from the relatively obvious need of the Air Force for many new KC-135 refueling tankers, to the desire by the Air Force to design and deploy a "5th Generation" new bomber (see the Air Force 2008 Posture Statement).

The Pentagon knows that while high-priced systems like the $1.2 billion stealth B-2 bomber will not fly anymore, people costs -- to train, pay, arm, and support them -- are one of the biggest items it must pay for. The Navy, for example, hopes its next-generation carrier will be so automated that it can reduce the personnel required to operate it from the 5,680 needed on today's carriers (ships crew and air wing) to somewhere around 4,500 -- a significant operational savings. But the Army, and to a lesser extent the much smaller Marine Corps, is going in the opposite direction, adding more people -- and their costs -- to the country's defense budget.

Politics, not just budgets, will play a central role in troop numbers

Cutting the military is always a risky endeavor, for both real security and political reasons. Democrats already are accused of being weak on defense, and Republicans, eager to reverse the last two electoral losses in Congress and the fall presidential election, will surely make it hard for Democrats to cut defense spending. And politicians of all stripes are never eager to close bases and cancel programs in their district, further hampering attempts to reign in spending -- no matter how logical the proposed cuts are.

While the massive cost of the Iraq conflict in terms of money (nearly a trillion dollars, though there is no official estimate) and lives lost and soldiers wounded helped drive Americans to support withdrawal (and the election of President-elect Obama), the threat of terrorism, pirates, and other non-state actors and hostile states (e.g., Iran, North Korea, and potentially China) will simultaneously cause citizens to support a robust military. The question is, with so many troops and no huge commitment in Iraq, what will they do and will they really be needed? In most wars, the cessation of hostilities has led to an overall troop reduction, such as after World War II and Vietnam. But with memories of post-Vietnam military weakness and the widespread understanding of the inability of the military to deal with multiple conflicts, a drawn down seems unlikely.

Like so many issues, the soon-to-be President Obama Administration will have no simple solution. And without a crystal ball that can determine future conflicts and military needs, the government will be unlikely to figure out an overall plan that both sustains a large military and also tries to jump start the faltering economy.

As usual, the soldiers and Marine won't get much say, and they may find that the troop increase is only temporary. Of course after seven years of combat in Afghanistan and five in Iraq, they might be too exhausted to care.

Cheney, if nothing else, is a man of conviction

Vice President Dick Cheney cannot be accused of being a man of little conviction. In an interview with the Republican-friendly Fox News (on the Fox News Sunday program with Chris Wallace), the current but soon to be former VP did not back down on many of his strongly held beliefs -- beliefs, such as the power of the executive in times of crisis, the role of the Vice President, and the legitimacy of harsh interrogation techniques -- that have caused tremendous controversy during his eight-year term.

This steadfast refusal to change his mind and unwavering support for policies and people that have been largely discredited is nothing new. For a previous look at Cheney's views, see this post and this post.

The Fox News Sunday interview: Final thoughts while in office?

In the interview (read the full transcript here), Cheney made several comments that are sure to encourage his supporters as well as outrage his detractors. Notable among his statements were comments about:

• Keeping America safe -- no mention of the cost to US military men and women. When asked about the Administration's low public approval numbers, the VP noted that, "We set out to do what we thought was necessary and essential for the country." The primary accomplishment he focused on during this answer was about security. He said, "I think the fact that we were able to protect the nation against further attacks from al Qaeda for seven-and-a-half years is a remarkable achievement."
  
  This "no attack since 9/11" view has been the one pushed recently by President Bush and administration supporters. And, it would seem correct on the surface as there has been no known al Qaeda attack -- big or small -- on US soil since the mass murders on September 11, 2001. However, supporters of this view fail to mention the resulting blood toll paid by US military personnel during the seven-year war in Afghanistan (known officially in the Pentagon as Operation Enduring Freedom, or OEF) and the over five-year conflict in Iraq (Operation Iraq Freedom, or OIF).
  The most recent Pentagon casualty figures -- including civilians from the Department of Defense -- for the conflict available today are (view the always-updated report here): 4,211 killed, and 30,879 wounded in Iraq; 625 killed and 2,606 wounded in OEF, mainly in Afghanistan. If you follow the logic that the efforts in OIF and OEF helped defeat or destroy al Qaeda and deter attacks in the US, the total loss to US forces would be 4,836 killed and 33,485 wounded. So, while the mainland and its inhabitants have note been attacked, many thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded fighting against al Qaeda.
  
  
• The role of the VP according to the Constitution -- lecturing on the role of VP without basis. In the sole VP debate in the fall, VP-elect Joe Biden famously made the statement about Cheney (read the debate transcript here): "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch." When asked about this comment during the Sunday interview, Cheney responded:
  

  Well, I just fundamentally disagree with him. He also said that all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution. Well, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature, which provides for the executive.

  According to the Constitution (read it in full at the National Archives here), Article I does mention the roles of the VP: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." Beyond some mentions about the election process and impeachment, that is all the actual Constitution (not amendements) says about the office.
  
  In fact, you could argue that the amendments to the Constitution diminished the role of the VP. For example, originally, the No. 2 vote getter in a presidential election became the VP, regardless of party. The Constitution originally read: "In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." The 12th amendment (Amendment XII, 1804) dealt, in part, with separating the Electoral College votes of the President and Vice President (the No. 2 candidate no longer would become No.2, or the VP, in the executive branch; eventually, states took over the role of choosing electors, and the one-party winning ticket we expereince now was cemented in place). Perhaps the most powerful role assigned to the VP was the 25th amendment (Amendment XXV, 1967), which made it clear that the VP became the actual President -- already in practice but not clear in law -- if the President died or resigned.
  
  
• Strong executive power in times of emergency -- still supporting questionable intelligence gathering practices and harsh interrogations. When asked about the role of the Executive Branch versus Congress, Cheney continued his consistent view that the President has broad powers in times of emergencies:
  

  Well, I think in wartime, when you consider his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, clearly that means command of the Armed Forces. It also, when you get into use of forces in wartime, means collecting intelligence. And therefore, I think you're fully justified in setting up a terrorist surveillance program to be able to intercept the communications of people who are communicating with terrorists outside the United States. I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high-value detainees.

  These powers he is talking about resulted in domestic surveillance programs that the President was forced to abandon, as well as harsh interrogation techniques -- that critics call US-sanctioned torture. To Cheney, all of the criticisms -- and forced changes to these programs -- are a kind of arm chair quarterbacking enabled by the peace those very programs enabled:
  

  Now we've had a lot of time pass over it and so we've had -- I think more people are more complacent, perhaps, than was true some time ago. We've also had a lot of our critics who want to score political points who've made what I think are outrageous charges.

  Given that the intelligence programs have been altered, and that the "harsh interrogation" methods are likely to immediately be abandoned by the incoming Obama Administration -- with plenty of support from current and former military and defense specialists -- Cheney's continued insistence that these were appropriate actions leave him with very few supporters on these topics.
  
  
• Rumsfeld's forced resignation -- not backing up his boss. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a lightning rod for critics of the Bush military policies, particularity in Iraq. He made news for seemingly not caring about the lack of armor (body and vehicle) for US troops in Iraq. He was admonished by many for using a machine to sign his name to notices sent to family members of deceased troops. Soldiers during his tenure managed the Abu Ghraib prison and the Guantanamo Bay facilities. He presided over the Pentagon as the Iraq situation worsened post-invasion and as the Taliban reconstituted in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. He was in charge when the scandal over treatment of returning troops at Walter Reed and other facilities was occurring. Overall, he was seen as a polarizing figure even by supporters, and a disaster by many critics and even Bush supporters. But Cheney continues to support his friend:
  

  Obviously, I did disagree with the decision. It wasn't my decision to make. The President doesn't always take my advice ... But I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us.

• The historical view of Bush -- not much of an endorsement for Bush II. When asked to name his favorite president in the last four decades -- largely time he spent in Washington as a public servant (as President Ford's Chief of Staff, a Congressman representing Wyoming, Secretary of Defense under the first Bush President, and now as VP) -- Cheney only talked about two, Ford and the current President Bush. But he did not give the current Commander in Chief much of an endorsement:
  

  He's been, in my mind, a very consequential President, a guy who made very tough decisions and never looked back.

An earlier interview offered similar responses

In an interview with ABC News the week before, Cheney had held a similar, steady course (read the transcript here). In that interview, of particular interest were his comment on torture and the invasion of Iraq.

Regarding torture: On the question of so-called "torture," we don't do torture, we never have. It's not something that this administration subscribes to ... Did it produce the desired results? I think it did.

...

On invading Iraq: [Saddam Hussein] was a bad actor. And the country is better off, the world is better off with Saddam gone. And I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] was off in some of its major judgments.

A place in history

For the seemingly few public and vocal Cheney supporters, the VP's responses in both interviews were classic Cheney -- he didn't admit wrong, and he didn't give an inch. For his detractors, they perfectly represented the hubris and inability to change that many see as a hallmark of the Bush two-term presidency.

However, when all is said and done, this powerful VP will likely be studied nearly as much if not more than his boss, for many believe it was his thoughts and opinion, and his power by connection to Bush, that shaped the most important and influential decisions about US security, military, and intelligence affairs during the last eight years. Love him or loathe him, Cheney has left a major mark on America and the world.

No more smiling at the registry

If a trip to your local motor vehicle registry wasn't enough of a pain, it turns out that you may not even be able to smile when you finally wade through the lines to get your picture taken. According to a story in the Times of Northwest Indiana, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) is not going to let drivers smile any more for their licenses.

The smile ban is not because driving is a serious business, and it's not because the only people looking at that picture will probably be police officers or someone at a liquor store or beer line at a concert. It is because the state's license photos are now part of a computer system that relies on facile recognition. And, according to the BMV, the software cannot function optimally if the subject of a photo has a happy face.

From the article:

A person's new photograph will be compared against old photographs on file -- more than 6 million dating back at least eight years -- to protect customers from identity fraud, said Ron Stiver, BMV commissioner.

...

BMV Communications Director Dennis Rosebrough said if a criminal went to get a driver's license under his name, the criminal's photograph would be compared to an old photograph of Rosebrough and the BMV could be alerted the next day that the two don't match.

For those in the UK, this is old news. A BBC News article reported back in 2004 that smiles and other expressions that were not "neutral" wouldn't be allowed on passport photos.

A Home Office spokesman said: "When the mouth is open it can make it difficult for facial recognition technology to work effectively."

...

The new rules say "photographs must show no shadows: your face looking straight at the camera, a neutral expression, with your mouth closed."

Companies like L-1 Identity Solutions with its FaceIt Argus offering will most likely be scanning your face in public places in the near future if not today, comparing your digital mug shot to those in databases, and making a quick decision on who you are and whether you are a threat. Of course, all these stored "faces" and databases, with related information about the individual raise all sorts of privacy concerns. As we mentioned previously, these "security" databases are growing, and in the case of many of those designed to nab terrorists and other bad guys, they have many problems.

Facile recognition: Not just for Big Brother

It's not just government or police agencies that are using facile recognition, either. For example, Picassa, a popular free photo management tool from Google, recently added a capability to compare photos using similar technology in order to automatically discover -- and "tag" -- photos of similar people. Google discusses this in the Name Tags section of Picassa Help:

After you enable name tags, Picassa Web Albums will look for similar faces in your photo collection. Depending on the number of faces you have, this process can take some time. When the scan is complete, you'll see an Add name tags button on the My Photos tab along with the number of faces that were detected in your gallery.

In the future, you might just have to explain to your significant other why the digital photo album is insisting your ex is in a recent photo of you about town.

Further reading for those interested in facile recognition

For more information on just how this technology works, click on over to the ever-useful How Stuff Works Web site for its entry on facile recognition. If you feel like browsing Wikipedia for a history of the software and its use, click here.

Replacing the M16/M4 ... for real, this time?

Is it finally the end of the road for the M16 (and its replacement, the shortened, carbine version called the M4)? The weapon system's iconic status has already been assaulted by our own military (from a design perspective, that is). The signature carrying handle of the M16 is hardly ever on display these days, and the plastic butt stock and the smooth barrel guards are rarely seen except when watching old movies, such as Platoon.

Currently, most US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan carry M4s, a smaller version of the M16 that retains little of the most noticeable visual cues of its bigger predecessor beyond the familiar silhouette of the front sight. But beyond the folding butt stock and the Picatinny rail system that now secures a variety of sights on the top (in place of the carrying handle; see this Wikipedia article) and attachments around the barrel, the current main weapon of US forces remains internally almost identical to the Vietnam-era M16. Most importantly, this includes the gas operating system that some claim leads to operating failures (if not cleaned appropriately or if operated in harsh environments). Now, forty years after it first saw combat in Vietnam, it looks like the M16 family of weapons will join other icons of the US military, such as the Willys Jeep of World War II and the Huey helicopter of Vietnam fame, as images of a bygone era.

[In a February news release about the Army's fiscal budget request for 2009, it was noted that the service would procure an additional 88,964 M4 carbines with selected optics for a cost of $151 million -- that averages out to $1697 per weapon]

Doing what the XM8 couldn't do

A few years ago, the Army almost replaced the M16/M4 with a newer rifle, the XM8, but in what appeared to be a last minuted bureaucratic backlash, the adoption of the new weapon system was abandoned (see this previous post, where we detail the history of the M16/M4 and discuss possible replacements). Instead, as the Iraq war continued, and US soldiers increasingly operated out of he confines of Humvees and in restricted urban environments, the Army approved the near whole scale migration from the longer M16 to its shorter variant, the M4 carbine.

Now, according to a recent article in the Army Times, it looks like the US Army is  ready to reopen the official debate on its main infantry weapon. What is particularly interesting is that not only is the Army open to the idea of an enhanced or entirely new rifle system, it is also considering a change in caliber (the diameter of the bullet used in a weapon). That would address the other long-standing criticism of the M16/M4, that its 5.56mm bullet, though moving at extremely high speeds, lacks the critical "stopping power" of larger caliber bullets. Put simply, the current bullet is accused of not having enough size and mass to knock an enemy down with a single shot.


No rifle is an island

But changing the main rifle of the US Army (and, as a result, probably all of the main US forces) has a massive impact. Top concerns include:

• Soldier familiarity and expertise with the new weapon.
• Spare parts for the new rifle/carbine.
• Enough bullets if the caliber changes.

These are major hurdles to overcome as the critical issue will be, assuming a new system is adequately tested, how will the transition occur? Moving from the M16 to the M4 meant very little change for soldiers -- the system basically works the same. The parts are largely the same, too. And critically, the magazine and ammunition are identical. But a new rifle/carbine will introduce a training and logistically nightmare, perhaps compounded by an ammunition change. The ammunition change also has other massive implications, since US allies (e.g., NATO members) have all standardized on 5.56mm rounds for rifles. So, actually making a change comes down to:

• Is there a better weapon system available?
• If so, is the new system better enough -- not just a little bit better -- to make the change worthwhile given the cost, logistics, and training issues involved?
• If a new caliber makes sense, how will the US convince NATO and other Allies of the need to change?

The M16/M4 may be on its way out, but it won't be gone for years

Changing something so important and with such a major impact as the main US military rifle can't happen overnight. From the article, it appears that it will take at least a year to even kick off the competition:

If all goes as planned, the Army will release a request for proposals late next summer, formally inviting weapons makers to submit plans and prototype weapons for testing, said Maj. Tom Henthorn, small-arms branch chief for Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.

Either way, it certainly makes sense for the Army to consider updating its aging rifle/carbine system. The US soldier deserves the best rifle/carbine the US can procure. But like any transition, there is little room for failure. The short-lived effort to move to the M-14 is an example of choosing the wrong weapon for the times. The initial disaster of the M16 in Vietnam illustrates how changes in the design and ammunition and training can cost lives.

Whatever the weapon chosen, the process needs to be well thought out and smooth in order to ensure the safety of the US soldier. And unlike the debacle with body armor during the early phase of the Iraq conflict, saying we are sorry to the soldier, marine, airman, and sailor in the line of fire is not acceptable anymore. However, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Department of Defense (DoD) procurement doesn't give one confidence:

Systemic problems both at the strategic and at the program level underlie cost growth and schedule delays. At the strategic level, DOD’s processes for identifying warfighter needs, allocating resources, and developing and procuring weapon systems -- which together define DOD’s overall weapon system investment strategy -- are fragmented and broken. 

... 

DOD investment decisions cannot continue to be dictated by the military services who propose programs that overpromise capabilities and underestimate costs to capture the funding needed to start and sustain development programs. To better ensure warfighter capabilities are delivered when needed and as promised, incentives must encourage a disciplined, knowledge-based approach, and a true partnership with shared goals must be developed among the department, the military services, the Congress, and the defense industry.

Let's hope that the Army and the DoD manage to learn from past mistakes and get the job of selecting a new rifle/carbine right, do it as quick as possible, and complete the effort within a reasonable budget.