From: Virgil
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:41:58 -0600
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829/
I'm not sure I agree with this outside review of the Army. I returned from
Iraq after a year there and what I see now is an Army running on all
cylinders but not yet stretched to the breaking point. What I do see are
issues with the National Guard and Reserves, often less well-trained with
less esprit and with soldiers not as willing to put up with more than one
deployment. In one sense the Army's skills are probably now honed as well
as I've ever seen them in the fifteen years I've been in the active-duty
and Reserves, combat zones tend to do that.
Don't get me wrong: I think that the US Army is the deadliest fighting
force that the planet has ever seen. I think the soldiers are the best
trained and best equipped combat force that the planet has ever seen.
And I know first-hand how professional and motivated the majority of
soldiers are.
I finished my career in the reserves. The National Guard has a
different mission than the active force. They also have state and local
missions, not just a federal one. They are not designed to be in a
regular rotation for active deployments.
They have been, however, increasingly used in this role. I'm not sure
what the current percentage of reservists in Iraq currently is, but I
think it's been as high as 60%, and normally around 50%. There are the
equivalent of eight infantry divisions, plus scattered seperate
brigades in the Guard. The divisions are transforming into brigade
combat teams that are self-contained and easily deployable as packages
with intrinsic engineer, chemical, artillery, MP, aviation, and other
assets that used to be attached. I think that overall makes sense, but
what it also shows is the intent to put reserves in as a regular part
of deployment packages.
When you consider what a typical reservist has to do (train for their
military mission in addition to maintaining a seperate career in the
civilian sector) they do an outstanding job. The things that active
component soldiers receive naturally as compensation are paid for by
the reservist either through a civilian job or out-of-pocket. There's
no housing allowance or health and dental coverage, for example. When a
reservist is activated those things come into play, but within a few
weeks after they are REFRAD, they go away. Many reservists take a
significant pay cut to go on active duty. Their military pay often does
not cover their living expenses in those cases.
Constant deployments will make reserve readiness suffer. It already is.
When you also consider that reservists are hit twice for retirement,
why the hell should they stick around? (You receive less points during
your career AND you don't begin to collect it until age 60, not
immediately upon retiring as with an AD retirement.) They didn't sign
up to be deployed on active duty every other year. So I think it's
understandable. Attrition is up, recruiting is down, just like on the
active side.
Finally, most deployed reserve units are actually a mish-mash of units,
which I believe effects esprit-de-corps. If a reserve Brigade Combat
Team gets deployed and is understrength in whatever MOS's are on the
DMD, they get 'passed back' to the Pentagon to be filled from whatever
unit, in whatever state, that has them. So while the Texas (for
example) National Guard is deploying, they'll likely have have soldiers
from a dozen or more states, filling very critical positions in some
cases. It's hard to trust people you don't know. Like every other
aspect of life, there are good and bad leaders and soldiers.
So if the reserve system begins to break down (and I think that's
started), and it's 50% of our total force (and you can check the
numbers, but I think that I'm close) then I agree with the report.
Usually in combat, an enemy unit is considered 'destroyed' when it's
reached something like 30% casualties. A broken 50% would likely mean
the same this as far as our 'total force' goes.
So I don't mean to dishonor those serving by saying the military is
stretched too thin right now, or to question their professionalism or
motivation. I'm just looking at trends and numbers and considering them
long-term. I believe that's all the report did too.