[Army] fortitude has allowed the Pentagon to sustain a situation that everyone recognizes cannot go on indefinitely, even though no end to the Iraqi conflict is yet in sight. The extended unplanned deployment of American forces is taking a heavy cumulative toll, especially on the Army and Army National Guard. It is undermining readiness and morale, and limiting America's ability to send substantial ground forces elsewhere to back up its diplomacy or respond to emerging threats. The Pentagon is beginning to resemble a desperate farmer who feeds his starving family the seed corn meant for sowing next year's crop. To keep enough boots on the ground now, it is sacrificing the ability to retain the leaders of tomorrow. As overdeployment has become chronic, promising young officers are opting not to re-enlist. When new crops of young people graduate from school, they will be less willing to combine their civilian careers with service in the Army National Guard; recruitment is already down almost 30 percent. The Regular Army is hurting too. Despite enlistment bonuses, it has had to speed up its reporting schedules, sending new recruits straight into basic training. [...] Rotations are being accelerated, with units that have already served in Iraq returning for second tours. These faster rotations are degrading readiness, wearing down equipment and leaving less time for normal training exercises. Reservists, including police, firefighters and other homeland defenders, are spending lengthy tours overseas. Four out of 10 Americans now serving in Iraq come from Reserve or National Guard units. [...] Many potential enemies overseas doubt that the public would have the appetite for that kind of sacrifice. As a result, America's diplomatic clout is being subtly undermined. Iranian mullahs weighing whether to give up their nuclear programs may conclude that Washington is in no position to face them down. North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, may also feel freer to proceed with his nuclear plans and move troops closer to the South Korean border. Chinese leaders may see this as an opportune time to escalate their bullying of Taiwan.
This country has a major problem seeing beyond the end of its nose. Short-term planning for long range problems is a set up for disaster. Yet, Bush and his Neo-cons are caught up in their grandiose vision of a US driven new world order, they just assumed the great Army would whether the storm.
What if the services can't turn around the falling recruitment? I can't say I'd be further enticed by promises of a higher salary and other benefits especially when the DOD has the history of canceling benefits whenever its expedient, such as VA medical coverage, a narrower definition of service related injury, etc.
I think this is the beginning of the US decline. The economy is anemic, growth is stutter step, and the middleclass is falling in increasing numbers into the underclass. The Underclass is showing signs of permanence because homelessness is so stressful and deprived, prolonged homelessness promises one's capabilities is never the same again.
Iran, North Korea, and China are growing more and more bellicose by the day. The US stretched beyond its means, is perceived as weak and weakening as the economy and its armed forces scavenges its reserves and spare parts just to maintain the effort in Iraq.
Complete Article
Editorial: The Army We Need
January 2, 2005
The nation mourns the men and women in uniform who are
killed or wounded in Iraq, one by one. But the public needs
to be aware, and be worried, about the larger picture too.
Our military and our military readiness have been strained
and risk real, permanent damage.
Twenty-five years ago, America's Army was a lot larger and
had a lot less to do. Now, a substantially smaller force is
struggling to cope with the demands placed on it by Iraq,
where boots on the ground are in chronically short supply.
For much of the past two years, the bulk of America's
frontline ground forces have been tied down in an
open-ended counterinsurgency war they were not expected, or
given the resources, to fight. These soldiers and marines,
active-duty and Reserve, have shown courage and
determination, despite shortages of armor and other
equipment, involuntarily extended enlistments and
accelerated rotations back into combat.
Their fortitude has allowed the Pentagon to sustain a
situation that everyone recognizes cannot go on
indefinitely, even though no end to the Iraqi conflict is
yet in sight. The extended unplanned deployment of American
forces is taking a heavy cumulative toll, especially on the
Army and Army National Guard. It is undermining readiness
and morale, and limiting America's ability to send
substantial ground forces elsewhere to back up its
diplomacy or respond to emerging threats.
The Pentagon is beginning to resemble a desperate farmer
who feeds his starving family the seed corn meant for
sowing next year's crop. To keep enough boots on the ground
now, it is sacrificing the ability to retain the leaders of
tomorrow. As overdeployment has become chronic, promising
young officers are opting not to re-enlist. When new crops
of young people graduate from school, they will be less
willing to combine their civilian careers with service in
the Army National Guard; recruitment is already down almost
30 percent. The Regular Army is hurting too. Despite
enlistment bonuses, it has had to speed up its reporting
schedules, sending new recruits straight into basic
training.
This growing crisis is not due to a lack of preparedness on
the part of military brass, but to the ideology on which
preparedness was based. Before Iraq, Pentagon dogma -
supported by most Republican politicians and many
conservative Democrats - held that United States troops
were war fighters. Peacekeeping and nation-building were
jobs for Old Europe. Well, that was then.
Now, more than half of the Regular Army's fighting forces
have either served in Iraq, are currently there or can
expect to be on their way soon, along with a substantial
fraction of the Marine Corps and historically high
proportions of the Army National Guard and Reserves.
Rotations are being accelerated, with units that have
already served in Iraq returning for second tours. These
faster rotations are degrading readiness, wearing down
equipment and leaving less time for normal training
exercises. Reservists, including police, firefighters and
other homeland defenders, are spending lengthy tours
overseas. Four out of 10 Americans now serving in Iraq come
from Reserve or National Guard units.
None of this should lead Americans to worry that the United
States - with the world's premier Air Force, Navy and
nuclear strike force fully intact - is defenseless. If a
new threat suddenly arose - if, for example, Al Qaeda
threatened Saudi oil fields, radical Islamist officers got
control of Pakistani nuclear weapons or China attacked
Taiwan - Washington could respond forcefully and
decisively. But that does not mean that broader American
security interests are not paying a price. Any additional
foreign engagement that dragged on beyond a few months and
required large numbers of ground troops would require a
wider call-up of reserves and perhaps a return to the
draft.
Many potential enemies overseas doubt that the public would
have the appetite for that kind of sacrifice. As a result,
America's diplomatic clout is being subtly undermined.
Iranian mullahs weighing whether to give up their nuclear
programs may conclude that Washington is in no position to
face them down. North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il, may
also feel freer to proceed with his nuclear plans and move
troops closer to the South Korean border. Chinese leaders
may see this as an opportune time to escalate their
bullying of Taiwan.
Listing all the dangers is much easier than coming up with
solutions. But there are some obvious short-term answers.
Barring any unexpected breakthroughs in Iraq, Washington
needs to increase its recruitment quotas sharply for
active-duty service in the Army and Marine Corps. The
current Army recruitment ceiling of just above 500,000
ought to go up to nearly 600,000, still substantially below
the levels of the late 1980's. The Marines' ceiling should
go up from the current 178,000 to around 200,000.
Attracting those recruits will require offering financial
and other inducements on top of the added payroll costs.
Most of the additional money required for this could come
from elsewhere in the military budget. The Pentagon is
taking a big step in the right direction by proposing sharp
cuts in the unneeded F-22 stealth fighter program. As the
military raises recruitment targets for the Army and
Marines, it can reduce recruitment for the Air Force and
Navy, which have more active-duty members than they now
need. America's ground forces have been asked to do too
much, with too little, for too long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02sun1.html?ex=1105704207&ei=1&en=602d92fc5d5f8d15
---------------------------------
Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
No comments:
Post a Comment