Is The Army Headed For Collapse?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Military, War
That’s the word from a former Maj. General in a new Washington Times editorial.
Bean counters in the Pentagon tell us that Army recruitment and retention are in good shape. Problem is, our cumbersome readiness reporting system only informs leaders in Washington of conditions on the ground many months after the force begins to break. Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around. Past history makes some of us sensitive to anecdotes and distrustful of Pentagon statistics. The Army’s collapse after Vietnam was presaged by a desertion of mid-grade officers (captains) and non-commissioned officers. Many were killed or wounded. Most left because they and their families were tired and didn’t want to serve in units unprepared for war.If we lose our sergeants and captains, the Army breaks again. It’s just that simple. That’s why these soldiers are still the canaries in the readiness coal-mine. And, again, if you look closely, you will see that these canaries are fleeing their cages in frightening numbers.
But really…is the military stretched too thin?
WASHINGTON � For just the second time since the war began, the Army is sending large units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year at home, defense officials said Monday. The move signaled how stretched the U.S. fighting force has become.A combat brigade from New York and a Texas headquarters unit will return to Iraq this summer in order to maintain through August the military buildup President Bush announced earlier this year. Overall, the Pentagon announced, 7,000 troops will be going to Iraq in the coming months as part of the effort to keep 20 brigades in the country to help bolster the Baghdad security plan. A brigade is roughly 3,000 soldiers.
The Army will try not to shorten the troops’ U.S. time, “but in this case we had to,” said a senior Army official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “Obviously right now the Army is stretched,” the official said.
And so it goes.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 2nd, 2007 and is filed under Military, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Well then, what we should obviously do is cut off funding.
April 3rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
All snark aside, the fix for too few available bodies is an increase in authorized end strength. So who is proposing that? Have the Joint Chiefs forwarded a proposal to Congress for that? Have any of the veterans on the Hill done it on their own? Something doesn’t fit with this story.
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
This is the most interesting quote from the story:
I don’t agree with that statement. I think better statement be: The lessons from this sad story is simple: When you fight a long war with a long-service professional Army, the cost to maintain the force increases the longer the conflict goes.
April 6th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
To begin with, current retention & recruitment rates are not adequate to solve the problems of an Army & Marine Corps already stretched too thin. For starters, it takes about a year to properly train a new soldier. And the lower standards for enlistment means those new recruits will create a less professional fighting force, which will create an even bigger loss of experienced non-coms & junior grade officers.
The Army is badly bent, heading for complete breakdown if conditions do not improve in the next few months.
Speaking of history: Looking back to the past several Presidents & their administrations, it is those with prior experience in the armed forces who make better decisions concerning when to fight & how to do the job if conflict is warranted.