Breaking the Army

Yesterday, three retired military officers spoke on the Hill. They weren't talking to an actual Congressional committee of some sort, because Congress wants no part of oversight these days. Instead, they spoke before the "Democratic Policy Committee." The topic of the "hearing" was Rumsfeld's performance. Most, if not all, of what was said was not particularly new. There were a couple of things, however, that should be repeated over and over until they sink in.

The first, and most important, is this: the current tempo of deployment is breaking the Army, and cannot be sustained:

"There simply aren't enough troops there to accomplish the task," said Batiste, [a retired Army 2-star general who commanded a division in Iraq] who has previously called for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign. "It's a shell game we're playing in Iraq, and we've been doing it since day one. And we're still doing it today.

"
That's no joke, and additional independent confirmation of the "shell game" came within hours, as the Army announced that the deployment of the 1st Armored Division's 1st Brigade is being extended by 46 days. A second brigade (4th Brigade, 1st Cav) just had their deployment moved up by a month, from November to October. No reason was given for the early deployment of the 1st Cav brigade, but the reason for the extension of the 1st Armored brigade is a bit scary: if they don't extend the 1st Armored by the 6 weeks, the unit that is replacing them (1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry) would be back in the US for less than a year before going out again.

That's bad. A year isn't much time to be home between deployments, and I'm not just saying that as the husband of someone who was only home for about 15 months between deployments. I'm saying that, having seen how much work got put into getting ready for the next deployment during those 15 months. The reset between deployments basically consisted of about a month of leave, thirteen months where everyone worked their tails off getting equipment back in shape, new people integrated into the unit, training accomplished, and all of the other details that go into making sure that a modern military unit is mission capable.

Getting all that done in a year isn't going to be very easy. There's a hell of a lot to accomplish, and all of it's important. There were plenty of weeks when people were working 80+ hours in a unit that had 15 months to get things ready. The people who have to do it in 12 - that's going to be rough.

And dangerous.

With less time to train and refresh between missions, and more pressure to get things done fast, there's more opportunity for things to be missed and mistakes to be made. There's also the additional risks that come from overwork - both at home and when deployed again. Decreasing the time between deployments will increase the risk to the troops. It simply will not be possible to get everything done and done well in that little time.

Add into that the family stresses that come from repeated cycles of 1 year deployments separated by only 12 to 18 months at home (if that - transfer at the wrong time or to the wrong unit, and you could be at home for as little as 4-6 months), and a situation is developing that does not bode well for the long term health of the military. It will get harder and harder to get people to stay. In fact, it probably already is. Data are tough to find, but there are indications (like a record 97% promotion rate to major) that mid-grade officers and noncoms aren't staying in.

The second point made during the "press conference" that bears repeating came from retired Marine Colonel Thomas Hammes:

Hammes said removing the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "introduced major instability not just in Iraq, but in the greater Middle East." And while the Bush administration has repeatedly said the war in Iraq is critical to U.S. security, "it has asked nothing of the majority of U.S. citizens," he said.

"While asking major sacrifices, to include the ultimate sacrifice, from those Americans who are serving in Iraq, we are not even asking our fellow citizens to pay for the war," Hammes complained. "Instead we are charging it to our children and grandchildren." (WaPo)

That's something else that bears repeating. Right now, the percentage of the country that is in uniform is quite low - under 1% including all the reserves (~2.5 million, with a total population of ~300 million. The people who are in uniform and their families are the only ones being asked to make sacrifices (for which the current reward is a pay increase that fails to match inflation).

Our children and grandchildren, on the other hand, will be asked to make sacrifices because of the war. Right now, we are borrowing money to pay for the fight. At the same time, George Bush made a mark (a black mark) in the history books by becoming the first president to cut taxes during a war.

At this point, I just don't know what to say. I'm past hoping for realism from this administration. I'd gladly settle for a hint of sanity, but I'm not holding my breath on that one, either.