Posted on 09/09/2003 8:23:09 AM PDT by SLB
Outstanding article.
Unfortunately, the problem did not end with X42. The current SecDef has invested a lot of political capital in the current force levels and "re-visioning". His recalcitrance in adjustments are leading down the path to employment policies which are digging the hole ever deeper and putting at risk the ability to respond both in depth and breadth.
You are correct ... retention is the first strokes of the handwriting on the wall - and Rumsfeld is gagging Daniel.
The money for the extra divisions is being diverted into Star Wars and other boondoggles. Soldiers don't kick back part of their pay as campaign contributions - the MIC does.
Yes, but starting in '91, the Army went to a weird 'family friendly atmosphere' where single soldiers generally got less benefits and more work in order for the babymakers, single mothers, caring fathers and Assorted Dreck to spend more time with their fat wives or crowbait children.
It was miserable--one of the reasons I left active duty: I didn't have kids or a wife and the Army culture just didn't suit me as a single guy--having to go to all the 'family-day' shite and Consideration Of Others Classes and crap.
Heck, I would have been, and still would, be happy to deploy indefinitely to somewhere 'hot'. As an officer, I was stuck reviewing Family Care Plans for all the single mothers and renting a dunk-tank or 'fun-jump' for all the family crap! It sucked!
The problem is: The job of most professional soldiers, in the Army, for the past 13 year has been to take care of families and crap!
I'm telling ya, man, as a single officer without a harpy or a rug-biter at home I was almost an outcast...
Yeah.... Wait until you are stuck answering phones and entering information into a computer for an Admin Specialist while she goes off and breastfeeds her bastard child. You'll wonder if it is worth it at that point....
Even those of us with wife and children who opted out of the "family friendly" activities were outcasts. So much so that I too hung it up. I was told by my rater that my priorities were wrong: God, family, job. Now I am working for the Army (have been for 18 years), have a great family and those are my priorities. I might add that I consider my career as a civilian to be more than successful, I have a whole "I love me wall" of doo dads from Colonels and above for supporting the mission of the Army as a civilian.
There ya go.... I hated that kind of crap!
The dopey army created this family emphasis and now are suffering because of it.
Even at my defense contractor job, the Air Force tries to force us into the happy-clappy-family-friendly crap. Fortunately, as a civilian, I can pretty much give them the middle finger...
From the article:
"The CBO report said that creating and training two additional divisions equaling 20,000 new troops would take five years."
And the crap will hit the fan in late 2004 when less than a year between rotations will push troops back into Iraq.
And then there's the FIVE YEAR refresh rate. And even that is optimistic using the 5 to 7 thousand being trained a year in a "down" recruting period.
Let's see, shortfall of 20K in early 2004 (due to falling reenlistments) plus FIVE YEARS = healing (only) beginning in 2009.
Rumsfeld better get a clue and get one fast!
Holy $hit, Batman.
The Air Force has had this problem for 10 years.
During stinkmisters 8 years a typical Air Force term of enlistment would go like this: Spend 3 months in Saudi, come home for three months then deploy to Europe for 6 months. Go home for a week or two and go to the middle east again or Africa etc.. We were crying for help but were told to suck it up. The Generals were lying to congress telling them all was good but self inflicted death rates, rapes, child abuse, wife beatings etc. were out of control. People were working 20 hour days and pilots were popping official pills to keep them going that would get a civilian arrested.
OK, stinkmister was the commander in chief then so it was OK then but now it's a problem !
You probably don't mean to sound a little calous, but I'm afraid you do (just a little). Yes, our soldiers follow orders -- no one is saying they don't. But when their enlistment is up, no one orders them to re-enlist -- that's a personal choice. Our soldiers are proud to serve, and they'll serve long and hard when needed. They also want to know they aren't being asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden without good cause. So I applaud anyone in the Pentagon or Army leadership who is seriously looking as ways to keep the burden manageable for our troops.
The article overlooks several ways we could get more troops quickly to help in a tight spot:
- Call up one or more National Guard divisions.
- Use Marines in peacekeeping roles.
- Withdraw from some peacekeeping roles where the U. S. isn't essential (Bosnia, Kosovo, Siani desert).
- Count on other services (Air Force, Navy, Marines) and other countries (South Korea, Japan) to free up some Army troops from the defense of S. Korea.
I also wonder if we have too many Army troops in training or "overhead" positions -- I suspect 5% to 10% of these slots might be cut without much harm, and that frees up a lot of soldiers.
Yeah, our troops are stretched thin. But just because they are stretched, it doesn't mean we have to immediately take the (expensive) step of expanding the Army without looking at other creative options.
I didn't know you are in the service -- that makes your comments sound a whole lot less calous. I'm sorry I made that observation.
(I too could easily be deployed before long. I know it can be tough, but I'm proud to do my duty.)
That's what I'm hoping for... I can't wait. I'm quite eager and excited, and the past few months (I signed up late April/early May) have just dragged by.
By the way, "there's more than corn, in Indiana"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.