Today’s world requires a bigger Army

This is reprinted from The State:

By Rudy Giuliani

The greatest challenge of our generation is to win the terrorists’ war on us. The next president needs to keep America on offense against the terrorists — that’s why I’ve called for the creation of 10 new combat brigades for the U.S. Army.

We need to remember the lesson from previous generations: Peace is best achieved through strength.

This isn’t the first time the United States has been faced with the need to expand our military during wartime. After winning World War I, the Army was cut by 90 percent. And when World War II came to American shores with the attack on Pearl Harbor, we were forced to play catch-up through the first years of the fight. After defeating the Axis powers, our Army of more than 7 million soldiers was reduced to fewer than 500,000 by 1948.

When the Cold War heated up, Harry Truman — a Democratic president — and the Republican-led Congress needed to establish a large peacetime military for the first time in our nation’s history. Our responsibilities as a world power demanded it.

But after winning the Cold War we again dramatically reduced our military. Washington called it a “peace dividend,” and it became the core of government policy in the 1990s.

The peace dividend has proven to be a disastrous decision. We cut military and intelligence budgets as Islamic terrorists were focusing their attacks on America and Americans. Terrorists attacked us in 1993 at the World Trade Center and in 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In 1998, our embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000, terrorists attacked the USS Cole, killing 17 servicemen. During this time, Osama Bin Laden even declared war on us.

We didn’t recognize the magnitude of the threat. During that time an Army of 18 divisions — the force that won the first Gulf War — was cut to 10 divisions. Total military manpower was reduced from about 775,000 in the 1980s to 470,000 on the eve of Sept. 11. The cuts extended to the purchase of new equipment — that’s why many of today’s Marine Corps pilots are flying the same helicopters their fathers were flying in Vietnam.

The good news is that conditions for our fighting men and women are improving. President Bush raised their pay and improved benefits. President Bush also increased the ranks of the Army and Marine Corps. More ships are being built for the Navy, and the Air Force is finally getting some long-awaited next-generation fighters.

These increases are necessary and important, but we need to do more. Military families are feeling the stretch of extended involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need a force that can both deter aggression and meet any challenge that might come our way — even two conflicts simultaneously. That’s why America must increase the size of our armed forces — in particular the Army, which has been cut the most and is under the greatest stress.

Ten new combat brigades will offer reinforcements where they are needed most. They will deter others from calculating that a stretched-thin U.S. military presents an opportunity for aggression. And they will allow the United States greater flexibility to fight and win the wider war against the terrorists.

I believe that Washington needs a healthy dose of fiscal discipline, but it must be done by establishing clear priorities. Our current military spending is low by historical standards — 4.1 percent of GDP, if you include supplemental spending. At the height of the Reagan build-up, it was at 6.2 percent of GDP.

Besides, costs should not be considered in a vacuum: They must be weighed against the prospective benefits of securing a more peaceful world, the threats posed by the terrorists’ war against us, and the certain drawbacks of letting down our guard. And while recruitment during military conflicts can be a challenge, I believe that the 9/11 generation — with its heightened sense of public service — will rise to this challenge if we make it a national priority.

America will win the war of the terrorists on us by staying on offense. We can’t listen to those who counsel retreat or advocate giving our enemy a timetable of our withdrawal. America doesn’t retreat: America advances. And to win, we must understand that realistic peace is best achieved by a stronger, larger and better-trained military.