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.