Should the Georgian Army be downsized?

The new government has taken charge of the defense ministry a few weeks ago. Since then there has been a lot of talk about dramatically reforming the ministry, changing the military doctrine etc. There also seems to have been some talk about reducing the size of Georgian military, perhaps to as few as 10,000 soldiers. No plans to do this have been officially announced – but if such plans in fact exist, and if the government decides to go through with them, it would significantly undermine the stability of the country and would be one of the biggest mistakes of the new government.

First, a bit of background information: Georgian army numbers about 35,000 soldiers which is the smallest army in the region (behind Armenia at 46K and Azerbaijan at 66K, not to mention Russia and Turkey). The proposed 2013 budget allocates about $400M to the Ministry of Defense. This is 2.4% of Georgia’s expected GDP and is slightly below world average. Georgia is the only country in the region that was in a full-scale war in the last 10 years (August 2008 war with Russia). About 20% of Georgia is occupied by Russian forces, and Russia has built up formidable military presence in these territories over the last 4 years deploying 3 or 4 new military bases (some as close as 1 hour derive from Georgian capital).

Now, why does Georgia need an army? The answer is simple – to ensure that its citizens are safe from external threats. In practice this could mean one of two things: (1) the army must be powerful enough to defeat any of the potential enemies or (2) the army must be powerful enough to make any invasion too costly for the potential invader to attempt. In Georgia’s case the “potential invader” that we need to worry about is very real – it is Russia. Obviously, in the near (or even medium-term) future Georgian army will not be able to defeat the Russian army (option #1). So, the only option we have left is to make sure that Georgian military is good enough to make any attempted invasion for Russia extremely costly (option #2). At the minimum, this means preventing Russian army from taking Tbilisi for at least a month hoping that international pressure builds up and the same thing as happened in 2008 happens again. At the maximum, it means inflicting enough damage that Russia would be unwilling to commit more resources to the war.

If we look at the war of 2008, Russia committed about 40K soldiers to the invasion. It is likely that it could easily commit more – maybe even 2x the number. But committing more than 100K soldiers (at least in the initial stages) is highly unlikely. For comparison, the U.S. was able to commit only 150K soldiers to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and U.S. has a bigger army than Russia). So, for all practical purposes, the minimal goal of the Georgian army should be to protect Tbilisi for at least a month from an invading force of 40K – 100K soldiers. With about 35K soldiers, good training, and modern weapons, Georgian army should be able to perform this task. If the army size was larger (60K – 70K) it would be even possible to ensure that the invader wouldn’t be able to get close to Tbilisi at all or do any other kind of real damage.

So, if anything, I would think that Georgia should slowly try to increase the army size (as financial resources allow) until it reaches about 60K – 70K. This would put it in line with what our neighbors have and would be enough to efficiently counter any potential invasion. It should be also clear, that reducing the army to about 10K soldiers would effectively mean that in case of invasion Georgia would not be able to defend itself. For all practical purposes having an army of 10K or not having an army at all is the same thing.

There are of course those who would say that all my reasoning above is useless – if Russia really wants to invade Georgia there is nothing Georgia will be able to do to stop it. They would say that being “neutral” is the best option and there is no need to spend millions of dollars on the army when the can be spent on increasing pensions or building roads. To these I would reply with the following points:

1. Neutrality must be protected with a capable army. One of the most neutral countries in the world (if not the most neutral), Switzerland, has one of the best armies in Europe. In fact, every male in Switzerland between the age of 19 and 34 is considered to be a soldier, is required to keep a personal weapon at home, and undergoes periodic military training. Active personnel in the Swiss army is about 135K soldiers (for comparison Swiss population is about 8M vs. Georgia’s 4.5M). I would argue that having such a capable army was one of the factors that enabled Switzerland to remain neutral for more than 150 years

2. There are countless examples of small nations defeating much larger enemies. All is required is a well-trained army, a capable military commander, and a national determination. Perhaps one of the most widely cited examples is the USSR-Finland war, in which Finns, being largely outnumbered and outgunned were able to inflict such casualties at USSR that Stalin was forced to halt the offensive. Few people would disagree that by standing up to the USSR Finns have secured a much better future for themselves and their posterity. Similarly with Georgia: having a capable army (and this implies an army more than 10K soldiers-strong) allows for a possibility of defeating an invader, and thus, makes any invasion so much less likely. On the other hand, one must remember, that as Napoleon said: the nation that refuses to feed its own army will feed the army of its enemy (this is a loose quotation)

Moreover, having fairly large army has two additional benefits during peacetime:

1. Military is, and has always been, a very well-functioning “social lift.” That is, it allows people from lower social classes to move up relatively quickly. This many not seem important, but if you have thousands of people who are transferred from poverty to middle class through military each year – the numbers will add up. In the context of Georgia, this is also a way to handle a large mass of rural population – military, at least for some of them, could be a way to relatively painlessly transition to an urban setting

2. Modern military is an incubator of entrepreneurs – and as such, it could jump-start many industries in Georgia down the road. Take Israel for example. Their tech sector is booming – I think they are among the top countries in terms of tech start-ups. Most of the start-ups are done by ex-military people who were exposed to very sophisticated technical systems while in the army (often these systems were developed in the U.S.). They gained the required skills, knowledge, and connections while in the army and once they left, they used them to start their own companies trying to improve on the systems, gadgets etc. they were exposed to. There is no reason why in Georgia people with the skills gained in the military cannot follow a similar path

All in all, by reducing the military to about 10K soldiers we will get a country that is incapable of defending itself from practically any real threat, we will close the path for tens of thousands of people from poverty to the middle class, and we will potentially pass on a way to develop some of the tech-centric industries in Georgia.