The Army Six Years after 9/11

[chris_gerrib]

At my Rotary meeting today, Lt. Colonel Fredric Kaehler came and gave a nice speech about his experiences in the Army. He is an Army Engineer officer, West Point grad, and was at Fort Polk, LA, when 9/11 happened. Since then, he's made three visits there, including a year combat tour.

I did get to ask two questions, which I will reproduce here with his answers. Please note - these are LCOL Kaehler's opinions, not reflective of the Army or US Government.

Question: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both highly unstable countries. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a group of 80-year-old men, and Pakistan is a military dictatorship. If we have to go in and "rebuild" these countries, is the Army big enough?
Answer: Probably not. We cut back too much in the 1990s.
Question: You've mentioned in your talk the large number of contractors used in our logistics efforts in Iraq. Are we over-dependent on contractors?
Answer: The number of contractors is enormous. Our amount of contractor-related work is probably why this war is so very expensive.

Comments

[jetfx.livejournal.com]

Saudi Arabia isn't that unstable compared to its neighbours, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to ever try to subdue than Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has only a sixth of Pakistan's 156 million and is relatively empty with the population concentrated around several urban areas which are smaller than Iraq's along with a very homogeneous population, both ethnically and religiously. Pakistan is mostly rural, with many ungovernable areas and a very inhospitable terrain on par with Afghanistan. Both would have very hostile populations. Regardless of cuts, anything less than wartime spending is going would allow the US army to occupy Pakistan and even then it would be hard. Saudi Arabia would likely be a bit easier than Iraq.

Even with a more muscularly funded military, the American involvement in Vietnam was largely a failure. However the comparison is not entirely fair, unlike what many commentators (especially lefter ones (Vietraq? Pfft.)) seem to think.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I think we're in general agreement here. When I was in the Navy (1989-1993) the Army was at 600,000 troops. They're around 450,000 now. 600,000 troops is probably the MINIMUM we need.

Re Saudi: Yeah, it's an easier nut to crack. My concern about its stability is that it's ruled by people who are the sons of Ibin Saud, the country's founder. After the last sons of Ibin Saud die, there's no clear line of succession and thousands of candidates.