Look, Ma, I Broke The Army!

One of the interesting things about being involved with the Clark campaign was getting to talk to the various military people who were involved. The ones I met were generally retired career officers, mostly quite senior; and most of them were people who not only served in Vietnam but stuck with the military afterwards, when it was, as they saw it, broken: demoralized, dispirited, with huge problems with discipline, readiness, and retention, especially in the army. The army officers I met were some of the people who stuck with the army through its worst period in living memory and worked their hearts out to put it back together again. And one of the things that really terrified them about the Bush administration and its war in Iraq was the thought that the institution they loved might be about to be broken again.

Despite my alarmist headline, I don't think we're there yet, but I have been worried about this from the get-go, and the more time passes, the more worried I get. Consider the following story from the NY Times:

"Fearing a sharp decline in recruiting and troop retention, the Army is considering cutting the length of its 12-month combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, senior Army officials say.

Senior Army personnel officers, as well as top Army Reserve and National Guard officials, say the Army's ability to recruit and retain soldiers will steadily erode unless combat tours are shortened, to some length between six and nine months, roughly equivalent to the seven-month tours that are the norm in the Marine Corps.

But other Army officials responsible for combat operations and war planning have significant concerns that the Army - at its current size and as now configured - cannot meet projected requirements for Iraq and Afghanistan unless active duty and reserve troops spend 12 months on the ground in those combat zones.

Officials say it is too early to predict if or when a new deployment policy might take effect or how it would be carried out. But the proposal to shorten combat tours collides with the immediate need to maintain current troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army planners say they must at least prepare for the possibility that it will be necessary to keep troops at the current levels in Iraq - 138,000 - through 2007, even though no political decision has been made in that regard."

So: if we want to maintain our current levels of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan -- levels that General Abizaid says are too low -- we cannot cut the length of tours of duty. But unless we cut the length of current tours of duty, we will not be able to recruit and retain soldiers at the levels we need. This is a problem.

Consider also the fact that the National Guard has just missed its recruiting targets by 9%, mostly because very few soldiers from the regular military are joining the Guard when their tours are up. This comes via Phil Carter at Intel Dump. Carter adds:

"Analysis: For as long as the Iraq mission goes on, this is going to be a real problem. If you're an active-duty soldier and you decide to get out of the Army, the last thing you want to do is be called out of civilian life with some reserve unit to go back to Iraq — the reason you probably left in the first place. Better to stay in and go as an active-duty soldier, because it's much smoother and easier that way and you're more likely to have better equipment, training and resources for the deployment. Over time, if this trend continues, the National Guard will slowly shrink, because it cannot make its recruiting targets (given current spending on enlistment incentives) without a steady flow of recruits from the active-duty force. Moreover, the Guard's quality will suffer, because it depends on an influx of mid-level officers and enlisted personnel with active-duty experience to maintain professionalism within the ranks. An article by Elaine Grossman in Inside the Pentagon (subscription required) makes this point too:

"Current and projected force structure will not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments," according to a briefing the co-chairs of a Defense Science Board "summer study" presented to Rumsfeld and several of his top lieutenants on Aug. 31. There are "inadequate total numbers" of U.S. troops for the job and a "lack of long-term endurance," states the briefing, reviewed by Inside the Pentagon. (...)"

Keep your eye on this one — especially next year if we remain committed to Iraq at our current level. There may be a train wreck ahead."

I have not noticed the Bush administration taking any of the steps that might be needed to prevent this train wreck. Have you?

Comments

[JadeGold]

Anybody remember Bush's accusation during the 2000 campaign that two Army divisions weren't ready for duty? That our last democratically-elected President had rendered the armed services a "hollow military?"

He was wrong then. But if he could make the charge today. In fact, three divisions probably aren't available.

The Iraq Quagmire has pretty well exhausted not just the Army but the USMC. Troop rotations are a mess and the fact is we're sending troops into a combat zone without adequate training. That--not calling Allawi a 'puppet'--leads to demoralization and low morale.

As Hilzoy, via Carter, notes--we are now looking at a gutting of the reserves in terms of overall numbers and, more importantly, experience. I will bet anyone this problem alone will take two decades to repair.

Let's not forget the ME isn't the only hot spot in the world. Far more serious problems have been allowed to fester elsewhere; NK is obvious, China likes what it sees and knows the envelope just got a bit larger, Indonesia, the various ex-Soviet republics.

Once more, Bush has created a problem for which the solutions are undesirable: heavy outlays of cash and a probable return to the draft.

[praktike]

In fairness, and I think the article makes this point, the Pentagon has been trying to shorten the length of the logistics tail and increase the percentage of combat brigades.

[Maynard Handley]

This is the same military that, even as we speak, is doing what it can to prevent soldiers from learning what there options are in voting against the Bush administration?
Boo hoo, cry me a freaking river.
The military has no right, five years from now to whine how "the government" hurt it, as though this was some undeserved bolt from the blue. It's called karma, guys; get used to it.

[hilzoy]

Maynard -- not sure exactly which thing you're talking about, but some of the more troubling military-and-voting moves are being done by the Defense Department, not by the military proper. Which is to say: by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, not by the soldiers who will be trying to undo the consequences of Iraq for the military for years.

[Maynard Handley]

I am referring to this sort of thing:
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0409220859.asp?A=MNT&O=M
........

[Washington | Reuters News Service, 22 September 2004] - Some Americans overseas are being denied access to a Pentagon-run Web site intended to make it easier for them to vote by absentee ballot due to security measures to thwart hackers, the Pentagon said yesterday.

The Federal Voting Assistance Programme's Web site offers US military personnel and American civilians living abroad information about voting by absentee ballot in the 2 November election, with links to state election sites.

But security steps put in place to halt hackers have instead blocked an unknown number of Americans overseas from accessing the site, www.fvap.gov, said Lt Col Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokesperson.

...............

Of course there's the usual blather about "we don't care who you vote for as long as the regulations are followed"; just like in Florida "we don't care who you vote for as long as you aren't on the felons list (which strangely happens to consist mostly of blacks who'd vote democrat, but not latinos who might vote republican)" or in Ohio where it is "we don't care who you vote for as long as you registered to vote using paper of the appropriate thickness (which, strangely, just happens to hurt recent Democratic GOTV initiatives)".

[hilzoy]

More evidence of problems, via Kos: USA Today reports that "Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.

The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

[Michael N.]

Maynard, First off, that block was lifted nearly a week ago, and even when it was in place, it only affected some people using civilian ISPs, like China Telecom. The military also provides Voting Assistance Officers, as well as making sure troops get advised of the procedures needed to cast absentee votes. Doesn't keep disorganized election boards from mishandling the absentee votes, but any measures to fix that problem would run afoul of the "posse comitatus" statutes. :)

Hilzoy, as far as the IRR callup goes, please note that of the 1,662 reservists ordered to report, approximately 1,538 of them have either showed up or requested exemption. Given that the records for keeping track of IRR reservists consist of basically just checking to see if they left a forwarding address with the Post Office, that's pretty solid. They never expected to get all of those IRR callups back, so they deliberately asked for more than they needed.

Does this mean there aren't problems? No, by no means. We need to make sure that the Army is authorized to go to a larger troop strength, and if that means a few more folks get waivers for things that would have disqualified them in years past (like having a GED), then we can live with it. The DoD is having to jump through hoops becuase Congress isn't getting the job done with the Military Authorization Act and the Military Appropriations Act. (Yes, you can blame the Republicans for this, and keep a clean conscience. It's a fair cop.)

Here is an article that gives a more thorough look at the issue, and tries to deflate some of the hysteria. Check it out -- I think it'll reassure you somewhat.