Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Army Nears A Breaking Point

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:20 PM
Original message
Army Nears A Breaking Point
<snip>

Having lived in Washington for almost 20 years before becoming a transplanted Texan, being back in D.C. last week felt downright weird. Some things obviously hadn't changed. The Redskins were about to trade another less-than-successful safety for whom they paid too much to begin with. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that a well-known lobbying firm had just earned its owner more than $11 million, the legislative process sometimes resembling thoroughbred racing or high-stakes poker.

What had changed dramatically, however, was the issue prompting my trip: the U.S. Army and its readiness for battle. The short version of my findings: The Army is no longer at the tipping point but at the breaking point.

Some argue that it already is broken, but the reality resembles certain West Texas towns like Noodle and Munday. Strictly speaking, they are not located at the end of the world, but you can see that point clearly, and the local bus will take you out there for a quarter. It is much the same in today's breaking-point Army, where institutional meltdown is in sight. The Army (created in 1775, an act of faith that necessarily preceded independence) is too small for its missions abroad and at home. Recent stories like the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed have only increased the growing sense of urgency.

Just last week, for example, the New York Times nonchalantly reported the shocking fact that almost 3,200 soldiers deserted last year. The response by an Army spokesman: Because desertions remain "below postwar levels and retention remains high, the force is healthy."

Wanna bet? Those glib words are contradicted by a high-ranking insider who, because he is still in a position to know, must remain nameless. He characterizes the Army as "an unready force" which — five years after 9-11 — has been stretched beyond the breaking point. The math runs like this: The Army must provide 33 brigades — each consisting of about 3,500 soldiers — to meet requirements from Iraq and Afghanistan to Korea and Germany. With the surge in Iraq requiring an additional 20,000 troops, the cupboard is rapidly running bare.

With half its 43 active-duty brigades already deployed overseas, the Army can only meet those commitments by dipping into the Reserves — and each of those brigades already has been mobilized and sent overseas at least once. The effect, according to the military insider: "We face two risks in Iraq: Al-Qaida and breaking the volunteer Army." The result of this force-to-mission mismatch is that we now have a "just-in-time Army," double-timing hard to stay a step ahead of its deployments.

Ever mindful that slick-sounding bafflegab is the mother's milk of congressional hearings, Pentagon personnel weenies came up with the "dwell-time-to-deployment ratio" — to put the best possible face on an absurdity. The current ratio is 1-to-1, meaning that you're either on a one-year deployment — or at home for a year getting ready for the next one. "But the real bad news is that 'dwell time' is going down to .7," my source said, so our soldiers may soon meet themselves coming home while heading back out the door.

Sheer statistical nonsense, of course, but its effects are quite real. With soldiers facing back-to-back deployments, it is small wonder that divorce rates in the volunteer Army are climbing or that some must make hard choices between family and continued service. Tough, realistic Army training — a defining feature and secret weapon for two decades — is also coming under enormous pressure as time, money and people are siphoned off just to meet the frantic pace of current operational commitments.

Yet the Times also reported last week that even in the elite 82nd Airborne Division, "the so-called ready brigade is no longer so ready" to fight. Its soldiers are untrained, and its equipment is elsewhere. Nor is this an isolated problem, according to my source: "Forty percent of our equipment is either in Iraq or is being rebuilt."

After consuming the peace dividend, you start gobbling up the seed corn. So it is in today's just-in-time Army, just in time for our upcoming war with Iran.

<snip>

Link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA032907.2O.allard.234f95e.html

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Monkeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Willy its broke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I Just Report The Facts, That We Was Right All Along...
Proud, but unhappy... ya know???

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Aaannnd...
** is prefectly willing to let Iran sink one of our carriers in order to get that war started. So, count us short in the Navy air support division as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I (slightly) disagree.
If a nuclear carrier goes down anywhere near the Straits, the Western World is pretty much fuc*ed.

But a support ship is another matter, completely.

I am pretty sure that something will happen in the next couple of weeks. We have Special Ops on the ground all over Iran right now. The US will definitely know it is coming before it happens.

A little bit of re-direction, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So you are thinking a destroyer, maybe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I am thinking tanker
Fold in an environmental disaster along with a ship sinking.

Go for the highest level of outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-30-07 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. But of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jonathan50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. On the bright side...
The military is quickly fleeing from its former infatuation with the GOP.

It's a crying shame that they had to be broken in order to see the truth. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow. In "Winning Modern Wars" Clark recommends 12 months down to 6 month deployment
If you have a 12 month deployment to a 7 or 8 month deployment.... well, that's more that what the army went through in France in 1944-45. This is what you get with an MBA president--always squeezing the sponge a little tighter and a little tighter just to get that last bit of water--no concept of sustainability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-29-07 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. Author Rebecca Solnit points out that no
left-leaning or peace loving president could have destroyed the military like Bush and the right wing have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC