US Army will delay plans to allow war-weary soldiers more time at home

[bigtree]

Thu Dec 10

WASHINGTON (AFP) – As it mobilizes for an Afghanistan troop buildup, the US Army will have to delay plans to allow war-weary soldiers more time at home between combat tours, the chief military officer said.

Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged that while the Marine Corps will reach in 2010 the Pentagon's goal of increasing "dwell time" to two years at home for every year deployed, "it'll take a couple more years to do that" for the army.

Senior commanders have struggled to ease the strain on the army and the marines amid rising rates of depression, divorce and suicide believed to be fueled by repeated deployments.

Veterans groups have pushed the administration to expand dwell time and Pentagon studies have shown that soldiers who spend more time at home between deployments report fewer mental health problems.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091211/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanunrestusnatomilitaryinsurgency_20091211022004

[C_Lawyer09]

1. So, the million dollar question?

If every Marine is a basic infantry rifleman, and scores of Army units have been deployed to pull convoy security and other non MOS specific duties, I wonder when some of the Navy and Air Force will jump into the game. Not only am I sick of seeing Army and Marine Corps Recruiers doing cheetah flips and monkey somersaults in an attempt to meet the ridiculous and unrealistic recruiting criteria for enlistment, I'm sickened, that when it is realized that various critical units are caught short, there can't be other service members augmented for security patrols and other tasks. Initiate a draft, wherein concern is spread throughout a bigger portion of the population, redeploy, or augment war weary troops with many whom are filling unneccessary posts, and often times stocking up on plenty of awards. This goes back to the absolute misemployment of special units going back to Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm. If it is a question of deploying Soldiers or Marines, 2,3,4, or more times without 24-36 months dwell time, then it is time to start shakin, and bakin,.

[bigtree]

2. I'm not convinced they would fill the appetites of the commanders

. . . at any rate, we're definitely seeing the limits of our ready forces.

[C_Lawyer09]

6. They might not

But some of those that have borne a huge amount of the burden would get their well deserved dwell time. If an entire field artillery battalion can be deployed as motor transport, and three hundred parachute riggers can be convoy security for a year, than I figure a few airmen and sailors can pull a trigger or do the same.

[bigtree]

8. I thought they were already pulling from those ranks

. . . they did so as far back as 2004 for deployment to Iraq.

[C_Lawyer09]

10. Nobody is taking the place of ground troops

except for more ground troops from the Army and Marines. Obviously Navy and Air Force special ops are heavily engaged, Combat Controllers, Seals, and Para-Rescue, but on the conventional side, Army and Marine Forces have been getting double tapped for years. This includes using and abusing National Guard and Reserve troops. Task organization and mission focus is paramount. Compare the contribution of the Army Stryker Brigades to everybody else. If you can't handle it within DOD then institute a damn draft.

[bigtree]

12. before advocating a draft (digging the hole deeper)

. . . I'd advocate a lessening of ambitions.

I think the defense and support of the corrupt, non-influential Karzai regime to defend against a band of terrorists in Pakistan is a wrong-headed and dubious pursuit - likewise with the assaults on the Afghanistan Taliban. It's just foolishness, no matter how much mission-speak you use to portray it as something integral to our national security.

[C_Lawyer09]

15. I'm all for lessening of ambitions

And I've made that abundantly clear in other posts. Especially because we've seen the fluidity that al-Qaeda exhibits. Don't think I, (like some others) are putting myself out there as some sort of defacto expert. I've read several books recently that have helped shape my decision, a few being, "The Looming Tower" and "Seeds of Terror". Being as how my degree path immersed me in a lot of this stuff, I had exposure to fellow students, most of them military like me, that had varying opinions of the impact of AfPak on our national security. One thing I don't fully understand is overreliance on people like Richard Holbrooke for strategic opinion. If it was possible to pull out tomorrow, and that was the plan, you wouldn't hear me crying, but I do happen to think, that unless we maintain a presence in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Somalia,(Camp Lemonier) and other failed states, we allow them to gain momentum insofar as recruitment, training, and reconsolitation that we can't afford. You'll notice that in most of my posts, I don't assert I have the right answers. Why? because nobody "really" knows.

[readmoreoften]

4. Agreed. Why let only the poor, who signed up for four years be drafted another 8?

[dysfunctional press]

3. well- they DID volunteer to do a job, after all...

and their job apparently isn't done.

escalation rules!

[bigtree]

7. they've pledged to honor those commitments

. . . and their commanders made pledges too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Expendable cannon-fodder for the ambitions of politicians and generals.

But, there will be a pretty monument erected for the unlucky ones whose "dwell time" will be moot.

[C_Lawyer09]

9. That's where we disagree

We, as a world have a stake in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the security of Pakistani nukes. We also share responsibility for stability of a failed state that is a training/recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. Further, for the empowerment of disenfranchised farmers getting limbs lopped off for not producing enough opium poppy. Before you start babbling about oil pipelines, you might educate yourself about national security doctrine. For all those babbling now, I don't think much was said when the containment doctrine originated, during the later part of the Carter administration. Realistically, unless every swinging Richard is going to grab a glove and get in the game it is only realistic and right that many others who wear the uniform will sacrifice in a way that allows multiple deployed Soldiers and Marines to get 24 mos. at home.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Screw "National Security Doctrine".

I heard all same bullshit during that other lost war.

And, just like that stupendous fuck-up, this one is being fought for PR for a president who wants to get his "tough" creds.

Not to mention the new "falling dominoes" and "bloodbath" scenarios foisted on us by the neocons/neolibs.

[amborin]

14. national security?

al queda can regroup and mobilize from Yemen, Somalia, Frankfurt, Germany, the US, etc.......

it's folly to think we are increasing national security by escalating in Afghanistan. if anything, the opposite is true; as civilians are killed, we further radicalize people throughout the world.

Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, and we are ensuring our accelerated demise by remaining there in large numbers.

[C_Lawyer09]

16. I'm familiar with the history of afghanistan

Can I assume that you are not in favor of attempting to mitigate any failing states? Those in Africa as well, for example. Because we are actually engaged in anti-terrorism activities in all the places you mentioned. As far as radicalizing those that can be radicalized, that is a slippery slope we already slid down, from the 1950's until present. The terrorist recruitment process has more than enough anti-Americanism examples to draw from, pre-Afghanistan, as evidenced by Khobar Towers. At the least you may observe that this is an evolving threat, and one that remains ever changing and in flux. So, whether you are in favor of total redeployment from Afghanistan or not, the bottom line still must be acknowledged. The bottom line is that the threat is not decreasing, aside from whatever suggestions, thoughts, opinions, that run the gamut of how the threat should be addressed. If you care to read "Seeds of Terror" by Gretchen Peters, I think you'll realize that these inter-related situations that we are facing, are more complex and nuanced than the argument, of go or stay, drones or no drones, etc.

[amborin]

13. it's all scandalous, and criminal!

[C_Lawyer09]

17. Blah, blah, blah...

If you want to ignore reality, put on blinders, and commit to a simplistic world view, than be my guest. All scandalous, and all criminal on "our part" negates the numerous attacks that Americans, Phillipinos, Europeans, Thai, Africans, and many others have suffered at the hands of terrorists. Now if you subscribe to the theory of "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" fine. But jihadists are terrorists to me, and in that light, I favor being pro-active. Read the "Clash of Civilizations" theory, put forth by Samuel Huntington. I don't subscribe whole heartedly to the theory, but I think you'll agree there are worthwhile parallels, and points interspersed throughout.