Rumsfeld rejects case for boosting size of Army

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sharply questioned yesterday whether the Army needs to be larger, despite warnings from its top generals that the 480,000-strong force has been “stretched” by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With nearly 150,000 U.S. troops needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future and 10,000 more in Afghanistan, questions have been raised about U.S. military readiness if faced with a war in North Korea or elsewhere.

Mr. Rumsfeld said the Joint Staff is “re-analyzing” U.S. war plans to determine whether existing forces can do what they are now doing and still meet contingencies.

The studies, he said, are finding that “mass is interesting but not necessarily determinative,” given the increased “lethality” demonstrated by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“And they are looking at other ways of achieving the kinds of effects that are desired in those contingency plans, and we find that often it requires fewer people than the existing information,” he said.

Mr. Rumsfeld also contended at a press conference that more can be done to ease the stress on U.S. forces without increasing their size.

The following are among the measures he proposed:

• Fill more jobs held by military personnel with civilians.

• Find more efficient ways to deploy and redeploy forces.

• Bring in more Iraqi police and troops.

• Increase the size of the international contingent in Iraq.

• Reduce the U.S. military presence in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai.

“At the moment I don’t believe that anyone that I’ve talked to has evidence that argues that we have done those kinds of things sufficiently effectively that one could make a current case for increasing end strength,” he said.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted the high cost of training and equipping new soldiers and said more troops do not offer an immediate solution because of the lag time before they can be fielded.

Story Continues →