GW1 vs GW2: Troop Numbers

This is a short and simple diary.

It occurred to me that I did not know how many troops we deployed in Gulf War I.  In Gulf War II we have 130,000.  Our mission, while against a weaker enemy, is far broader: occupy Iraq and construct a stable, democratic nation.

The mission of GW1 was to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, a much smaller geographic area.

There have been repeated claims of a troop shortage in Iraq today.  So, in the less expansive mission of Gulf War I, how many troops did we have?

Answer:
Gulf War I:  490,000 US; 210,000 Coalition
Gulf War II:  ~130,000 US; ~20,000 Coalition

sSource (for GWI numbers. GWII from memory)

Saddam's army was undoubtedly stronger in 1991.  Nonetheless, the difference between our commitment now and then is rather amazing.

•  good stat

  but you mixed up the wars, didn't you?

  by Caligrl on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:42:06 AM PDT

  •  Drats!

    Yes, those are backwards.

    Gulf War I: 490,000 US; 210,000 Coalition
    Gulf War II: 130,000 US; 20,000 Coalition.

    I need to go drink more coffee.

    by teece on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:47:01 AM PDT

•  Lack of Resources, Not Commitment

  The number of men now enlisted in Armed Forces is at the lowest level since 1939.  I heard ret. Gen. Barry McAffrey on NPR this morning saying that the U.S. has no more troops available to send to Iraq.  We are stretched to the absolute limit.  

  by Grand Poobah on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

  •  Why?

    Any indication of why?

    Is it military cut-backs?  A drop in volunteers?  Some combo of both?

    It also makes me say:  if Bush wants to get his war on, he needs to be an adult and actually do something about the lack of troops.  Up to and including a draft.

    After all, if it's worth fighting, a war should be worth a draft.

    by teece on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:32:05 AM PDT

    •  One thing to consider

      Is the use of independent contractors, such as KBR, to run the supply routes.  In every other war before this one, the Army did most of its own work itself.  Therefore, you had enlisted men in the army who were doing the cooking, who were driving the tanker trucks, who were doing the construction of things that the army needed, and so on.

      Now, we've contracted those duties out to people like KBR, and their numbers aren't caught in the traditional count of soldiers.  Ditto the mercenaries.

      In addition, during GW1: we had a pretty major navy and air force involved in the fighting.  One aircraft carrier alone is like 5000 soldiers;  plus several thousand more in teh supporting group, and I believe that GW1 involved somewhere between 4 and 6 carrier groups in the area.  Air operations require a pretty major force to support the planes on the ground too.  I assume that these soldiers were counted in that original count.

      None of htis means we shouldn't have more troosp there, but I don't think you can do the comparison as 1 then to 1 now.

      by balta1701 on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:57:00 AM PDT

      •  Good Point

        I suspect you are right.  But even if you grant 200,000 troops to support roles, Navy, and Air Force, you still come up with more than a shortfall of 300,000.

        The more I think about this, the more I think it was an astounding blunder on Rummy and Bush's part.

        by teece on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:17:01 PM PDT

•  What do you bet...?

  That Bush went into this war with 144,000 troops figuring that God would provide?  Faith based warfare!  Fun for the whole family!

  by ultrageek on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:27:53 AM PDT

  •  You're right, Sadly

    I suspect it is exactly that.  Rummy had such faith in his small, light military plans (less pesky troops, more expensive, defense-contractor supplies), and Bush such faith in his God-given righteousness, that they ignored the gross lack of manpower they were facing for the task.

    This is one of the main reasons that any respect I might of had for Powell is gone -- everything they did in GWI was thrown out the window.  Powell should have fought for his case or resigned.  He did much harm by becoming a Bush shill.

    by teece on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 11:38:10 AM PDT

  •  properly equipped

    i think we definatly went in with too few troops... however the bigger fault is that the ones we did send weren't properly equipped. had they all had the right body armor, etc perhaps they'd be doing a little better now.

    by gregonthe28th on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 12:09:44 PM PDT

    •  This would have reduced casualties

      to be sure, but I'm not convinced that things would be going better now.

      After all, "not getting killed" may be the #1 priority of each soldier or marine, but that's hardly the #1 priority of the people in command.

      by Bill Rehm on Thu Apr 15, 2004 at 01:05:43 PM PDT