Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

U.S. Military Spread Too Thin?

Aired June 18, 2003 - 07:18   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: With morale of U.S. troops suffering in Iraq, questions are being raised about how many troops are needed there and how long they should stay. The House Armed Services Committee will raise that issue today as it looks at whether U.S. forces are fanned out in many too many parts of the world.
President Bush has his own opinion on the subject of U.S. military readiness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Two-and-a-half years ago, our military was not receiving the resources that's needed, and morale was beginning to suffer. We increased the defense budget to prepare for threats of a new era, and today no one in the world can question the skill and strength and spirit of the United States military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: With us now from Washington, House Armed Services chairman, Duncan Hunter.

Congressman, good morning. Thanks for being with us.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning.

KAGAN: First, I want to get to the big picture of this hearing. It's to look at the overall size of the U.S. military. Where do you think that number should be, and is the current number too large or too small?

HUNTER: Well, we've cut -- Daryn, we've cut the military almost in half since 1991. We had -- during the first Gulf War we had 18 Army divisions. We're now down to 10. We had 24 active fighter air wings. We've now cut that down to only 13, so we've cut air power almost in half. And we had a Navy with 546 ships in 1991. That's down to just about 300 right now. So, we have a much smaller force structure.

Now, I heard the president's statement, and we do have to give the president his due. This defense budget this year that we're about ready to pass is $90 billion more than the last Clinton defense budget. Nonetheless, we have commitments around the world, and this country has to have a military with broad capability. Obviously, we have to be able to win a conventional armored attack like we launched in Iraq. We have to be able to handle guerrilla warfare. We also have to handle an occupation, which is being undertaken right now in Iraq. That takes a lot of people. And I personally would like to see an extra couple of divisions and an extra couple of fighter air wings and more bomber strength.

KAGAN: We want to look at some specific sites right now; first, of course, Iraq. A lot of criticism that for the post-war planning not enough troops were sent there. Are there enough now, and how long do they need to stay?

HUNTER: I think we have enough troops. I think that's something that is, like the war itself, is best judged by the eyes of the commander who is on the ground there. And, of course, every troop is a potential target for the remnants of the Baath Party, who are still operating and still exist obviously in Iraq.

So, I think that the problems we're having there right now, the sniping and that type of thing, is not a function of not having enough troops. I think we have enough troops there. I was there a couple of weeks ago.

However, we also have commitments in Korea, and we have commitments around the world in other places. And this...

KAGAN: Yes, Congressman, I want to get to Korea in just a second.

HUNTER: Certainly.

KAGAN: First, I want to focus back here on Iraq. Certainly what's happening in Iraq is a much bigger picture than just certain sniping incidents as you're losing an average of one soldier a day. But just in terms of being able to get a hold on Iraq and help it go to the next stage, which is the U.S. pulling out and the Iraqis governing themselves. A lot of people believe that not enough troops were sent in to do that job.

HUNTER: No, I disagree with that, because it's true that we've lost -- we're losing an average of about 7 to 10 troops every two weeks. That's true. On the other hand, in Washington, D.C., where I'm sitting right now, we've lost 20 people killed in the last 30 days, and nobody has suggested that we evacuate Washington, D.C. So, this occupation is dangerous.

On the other hand, we're starting to turn on the lights, the electricity, the water supply, and stand up these small governments in these communities throughout Iraq. So, this is a tough, difficult challenge, but it is not a no man's land over there where literally we have another battlefield scene emerging every day. It's true that we have sniping. It's true that we have shots being fired at Americans with deadly effect. On the other hand, our people are locked and loaded and they fire back with deadly force.

KAGAN: Congressman Hunter, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the hearings as they begin today. Thank you for your time, sir. HUNTER: Certainly.

KAGAN: Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.







Aired June 18, 2003 - 07:18   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: With morale of U.S. troops suffering in Iraq, questions are being raised about how many troops are needed there and how long they should stay. The House Armed Services Committee will raise that issue today as it looks at whether U.S. forces are fanned out in many too many parts of the world.
President Bush has his own opinion on the subject of U.S. military readiness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Two-and-a-half years ago, our military was not receiving the resources that's needed, and morale was beginning to suffer. We increased the defense budget to prepare for threats of a new era, and today no one in the world can question the skill and strength and spirit of the United States military.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAGAN: With us now from Washington, House Armed Services chairman, Duncan Hunter.

Congressman, good morning. Thanks for being with us.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Good morning.

KAGAN: First, I want to get to the big picture of this hearing. It's to look at the overall size of the U.S. military. Where do you think that number should be, and is the current number too large or too small?

HUNTER: Well, we've cut -- Daryn, we've cut the military almost in half since 1991. We had -- during the first Gulf War we had 18 Army divisions. We're now down to 10. We had 24 active fighter air wings. We've now cut that down to only 13, so we've cut air power almost in half. And we had a Navy with 546 ships in 1991. That's down to just about 300 right now. So, we have a much smaller force structure.

Now, I heard the president's statement, and we do have to give the president his due. This defense budget this year that we're about ready to pass is $90 billion more than the last Clinton defense budget. Nonetheless, we have commitments around the world, and this country has to have a military with broad capability. Obviously, we have to be able to win a conventional armored attack like we launched in Iraq. We have to be able to handle guerrilla warfare. We also have to handle an occupation, which is being undertaken right now in Iraq. That takes a lot of people. And I personally would like to see an extra couple of divisions and an extra couple of fighter air wings and more bomber strength.

KAGAN: We want to look at some specific sites right now; first, of course, Iraq. A lot of criticism that for the post-war planning not enough troops were sent there. Are there enough now, and how long do they need to stay?

HUNTER: I think we have enough troops. I think that's something that is, like the war itself, is best judged by the eyes of the commander who is on the ground there. And, of course, every troop is a potential target for the remnants of the Baath Party, who are still operating and still exist obviously in Iraq.

So, I think that the problems we're having there right now, the sniping and that type of thing, is not a function of not having enough troops. I think we have enough troops there. I was there a couple of weeks ago.

However, we also have commitments in Korea, and we have commitments around the world in other places. And this...

KAGAN: Yes, Congressman, I want to get to Korea in just a second.

HUNTER: Certainly.

KAGAN: First, I want to focus back here on Iraq. Certainly what's happening in Iraq is a much bigger picture than just certain sniping incidents as you're losing an average of one soldier a day. But just in terms of being able to get a hold on Iraq and help it go to the next stage, which is the U.S. pulling out and the Iraqis governing themselves. A lot of people believe that not enough troops were sent in to do that job.

HUNTER: No, I disagree with that, because it's true that we've lost -- we're losing an average of about 7 to 10 troops every two weeks. That's true. On the other hand, in Washington, D.C., where I'm sitting right now, we've lost 20 people killed in the last 30 days, and nobody has suggested that we evacuate Washington, D.C. So, this occupation is dangerous.

On the other hand, we're starting to turn on the lights, the electricity, the water supply, and stand up these small governments in these communities throughout Iraq. So, this is a tough, difficult challenge, but it is not a no man's land over there where literally we have another battlefield scene emerging every day. It's true that we have sniping. It's true that we have shots being fired at Americans with deadly effect. On the other hand, our people are locked and loaded and they fire back with deadly force.

KAGAN: Congressman Hunter, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the hearings as they begin today. Thank you for your time, sir. HUNTER: Certainly.

KAGAN: Appreciate it.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.