The U.S. Army currently has 1,005,725 soldiers in total: 480,893 across the regular Army; 336,129 in the Army National Guard; and 188,703 in the Army Reserve.
Overall, the military in 2024 was the smallest it had been since World War II. The last time it was this small was in 1940, a year before Pearl Harbor was bombed and the U.S. entered the war.
U.S. Army Rangers assigned to 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, fire off a AT-4 at a range on Camp Roberts, Calif., Jan 26, 2014. Rangers use a multitude of weaponry during their annual tactical training. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Rashene Mincy/ Not Reviewed)
It is fair, then, to wonder whether the Army is big enough to accomplish its goals.
After the Initial Iraq Withdrawal, Sec Def Said The Army Was Too Big:
While the U.S. military withdrew from Iraq and began to wind down its operations in Afghanistan, the U.S. Army, which peaked with a force of around 570,000 a few years before that, was supposed to drop to around 490,000 troops.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said it was still too big.
“An Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy,” Hagel told a news conference at a time when the active-duty force numbered about 490,000.
Considerations for the Size of the U.S. Army
Whenever a war ends, the military always cuts back. Congress invariably cuts it back too much, and the majority of the cuts come from the Army. This happened after World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.
So what size should it be?
The answer can vary in time depending on several factors, including the National Military Strategy, available resources, competing priorities that need attention, and changes in the threat environment that can be foreseen.
Army readiness evaluations revolve around four main components: personnel, equipment availability, equipment readiness, and training. A unit’s overall readiness assessment—its ability to accomplish its core functions, provide its intended capabilities, and carry out its mission-essential tasks—is determined by the lowest rating of these four areas.
The Ever-Changing Strategic Environment
The U.S. National Military Strategy organizes threats to the U.S. into two primary categories: “revisionist” states and “violent extremist organizations.”
Concerning “revisionist states,” the challenges posed by four nations—Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China—are all vital concerns to the U.S. and its allies around the world.
Russia has invaded Ukraine, and, if successful, will turn its eye further westward toward Latvia and the other Baltic states. Iran is the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism and has undermined stability in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
North Korea, according to the National Military Strategy, threatens its regional neighbors (including Japan and South Korea) with its production of nuclear weapons. Its missile testing in the Sea of Japan and its constant saber-rattling turn the region into a powder keg.
China’s enormous military buildup and its recent land reclamation activities—its illegal construction of artificial islands, then buttressed with military bases—in the South China Sea are destabilizing. It has made claims on Taiwan and has told its military to be prepared for war in the 2020s.
Terrorist groups have traditionally used a combination of low-tech weaponry (such as suicide vests and improvised explosive devices) as well as sophisticated propaganda and messaging strategies to spread their influence.
But thanks to Iran and Russia, these groups have received more sophisticated weapons, including rockets, ballistic missiles, and drones. Iran has suffered the weakening of two of its biggest proxies in the region, with Hamas in Gaza taking a tremendous beating from the Israelis after they attacked Israel in October 2023.
Likewise, Hezbollah in Lebanon decided to get involved in the attacks on Israel, and its leadership was eliminated by intense Israeli airstrikes.
But Tehran and Moscow have acted elsewhere to support terrorism. These nations fund Houthi rebels in Yemen, arming them with missiles to attack merchant shipping as well as the U.S. Navy in the Red Sea.
Why Does This Matter?
The U.S. Army always based the size of its forces on the ability to operate effectively during two simultaneous all-out ground wars. The United States no longer has that capability.
One all-out ground war may be a tough undertaking for the military right now. With 480,000 active duty soldiers, and less than 20 percent of those being combat-armed, it would be tough to manage a fight, let alone supply that fight, in a near-peer environment.
A live fire demonstration of the Army’s newest and most modernized combat vehicle, the M10 Booker, marks the conclusion of the M10 Booker Dedication Ceremony at Aberdeen Proving Ground, in Aberdeen, Md., April 18, 2024. (U.S. Army photo by Christopher Kaufmann)
Clausewitz wrote that the military exists to accomplish political goals. The U.S. military was built for deterrence, but the bad actors in the world are calling America’s bluff.
The military needs to increase, not decrease, its size.
About the Author:
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications.
