Study Finds Army Forces Stretched Thin

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
More smoke and mirrors from the BuSh admin.........

Study Finds Army Forces Stretched Thin
Tuesday, January 24, 2006

WASHINGTON — Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public. While not released publicly, a copy of the report was provided in response to an Associated Press inquiry.

Illustrating his level of concern about strain on the Army, Krepinevich titled one of his report's chapters, "The Thin Green Line."

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Col. Lewis Boone, spokesman for Army Forces Command, which is responsible for providing troops to war commanders, said it would be "a very extreme characterization" to call the Army broken. He said his organization has been able to fulfill every request for troops that it has received from field commanders.

The Krepinevich assessment is the latest in the debate over whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have worn out the Army, how the strains can be eased and whether the U.S. military is too burdened to defeat other threats.

Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam veteran, created a political storm last fall when he called for an early exit from Iraq, arguing that the Army was "broken, worn out" and fueling the insurgency by its mere presence. Administration officials have hotly contested that view.

George Joulwan, a retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, agrees the Army is stretched thin.

"Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that," Joulwan told CNN last month.

Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

For an Army of about 500,000 soldiers — not counting the thousands of National Guard and Reserve soldiers now on active duty — the commitment of 100,000 or so to Iraq might not seem an excessive burden. But because the war has lasted longer than expected, the Army has had to regularly rotate fresh units in while maintaining its normal training efforts and reorganizing the force from top to bottom.

Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey, for example, opened a Pentagon news conference last week by denying the Army was in trouble. "Today's Army is the most capable, best-trained, best-equipped and most experienced force our nation has fielded in well over a decade," he said, adding that recruiting has picked up.

Rumsfeld has argued that the experience of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the Army stronger, not weaker.

"The Army is probably as strong and capable as it ever has been in the history of this country," he said in an appearance at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington on Dec. 5. "They are more experienced, more capable, better equipped than ever before."

Krepinevich said in the interview that he understands why Pentagon officials do not state publicly that they are being forced to reduce troop levels in Iraq because of stress on the Army. "That gives too much encouragement to the enemy," he said, even if a number of signs, such as a recruiting slump, point in that direction.

Krepinevich is executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonprofit policy research institute.

He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the private Brookings Institution, said in a recent interview that "it's a judgment call" whether the risk of breaking the Army is great enough to warrant expanding its size.

"I say yes. But it's a judgment call, because so far the Army isn't broken," O'Hanlon said.
 
Have you noticed how many recruitment commercials the Air Force, Army, Navy & Marines has out on TV now not to mention the enlisting age has been bumped to 39 for the Army, not sure about the other branches.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Have you noticed how many recruitment commercials the Air Force, Army, Navy & Marines has out on TV now not to mention the enlisting age has been bumped to 39 for the Army, not sure about the other branches.

You've got to be kidding.

Have you noticed that we're at war?

:rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
You've got to be kidding.

Have you noticed that we're at war?

:rolleyes:

Still doesn't take away from the fact that the military can barely reach their recruitment goals and that pertains to the topic of the thread. Maybe better planning ahead of time would have been a good idea, underestimating how long you're going to be at war is dangerous.
 
Two things you need to know about the military...
1. If we ain't bitchin' we ain't happy.
2. We're always hurting for people...since 1776.

That being said, here's a good article...



Joint Chiefs examining differing combat tour lengths

by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

1/4/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Joint Chiefs of Staff continue examining how long servicemembers should serve in Iraq, but for now they are satisfied the tour lengths are about right, Marine Gen. Peter Pace said.

General Pace, who was flying back after leading a weeklong United Service Organization trip to the U.S. Central Command area of operations, said Jan. 3 the service chiefs have examined the policy carefully over the past two years.

Iraq tour lengths are different among the services. Airmen generally deploy for four months. Marines and Sailors serve about seven months. Soldiers generally spend a year with "boots on the ground."

General Pace said he hadn't heard complaints about tour lengths from the troops, but has been told of concerns.

"It boils down to the way that each service employs its force, and how best then to assure that they get the most out of the people they have," the general said.

For example, the Marine Corps is tied to Navy ship deployments and that drives their six- or seven-month deployment.

"When the Marines do the math, they figure they can get the most out of Pfc. Pace in six- or seven-month deployments inside a normal four-year commitment," General Pace said.

For the Army, with brigade rotations and the heavy commitment of reserve component forces, officials deemed a year was the proper length of service.

"The Air Force works with a lot of guardsmen and reservists blended into their units," the general said. "So as they look at it, a four-month rotation works very well."

General Pace said the differing tour lengths are confusing and frustrating to those on the ground.

"But in Washington, it makes sense for each of the services to be doing what they are doing,” he said. “But that doesn't mean we won't keep looking at the situation.”
 
Oh and we aren't begging for people...we're actually cutting jobs.


Force shaping Phase II evolves for officers in fiscal 2006

by Master Sgt. Mitch Gettle
Air Force Print News

8/24/2005 - WASHINGTON -- The Air Force’s officer corps is overmanned by about 4,000 Airmen.

In fiscal 2005, the Air Force’s voluntary force shaping initiatives successfully reduced the size of the active duty population to its congressionally authorized level of 359,000.

However, the fiscal 2006 budget trims the Air Force down to 357,400 Airmen. The new population target shows the Air Force will have an overage of officers.

“The Air Force is still experiencing a surplus in officers, particularly in the junior grades,” said Brig. Gen. Glenn F. Spears, Air Force director of force management policy. “We will continue our force shaping efforts until the proper balance and skill mixture is achieved.”

The general said that if the situation were left unresolved, these additional officers would constrain the service’s readiness and operational effectiveness.

Air Force officials recently announced the next force shaping Phase II evolution to address the officer surplus, waiving recoupment of unearned portions of some bonuses and education costs.

“Some of the Air Force programs where recoupment is not pursued include transfers to the Guard or Reserve via Palace Chase, Limited Active Duty Service Commitment waivers, ROTC cadet disenrollment and interservice transfers to the Army via Blue-to-Green,” the general said.

Eligibility criteria differs among the programs and interested officers are encouraged to consult information presented at the Air Force Personnel Center Force Shaping Web site at www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/retsep/shape2.htm or their local military personnel flight.

“By further expanding the voluntary force shaping opportunities, the Air Force will continue to shape the force for future operational challenges,” General Spears said. “These recoupment-related initiatives offer additional means for those officers who were considering leaving active duty, but did not want to owe the government.”
 
95DevilleNS said:
Have you noticed how many recruitment commercials the Air Force, Army, Navy & Marines has out on TV now not to mention the enlisting age has been bumped to 39 for the Army, not sure about the other branches.

By federal law, the maximum age to enlist in the military is age 35. This is because an enlisted person must be able to have 20 years of service, to be retirement eligible by the maximum retirement age of 55.
Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have, for active duty enlistments. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for active duty, for each of the services are:

Army - 34
Air Force - 27
Navy - 34
Marines - 28
Coast Guard - 27

The maximum age for enlistment in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Reserves is age 35. The maximum age for enlistment in the Army and Navy Reserves is age 39. The maximum enlistment age for the Air and Army National Guard is age 35, although this can sometimes be waived, depending on individual state requirements.
 
I could do this all day...

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

BY R. NORMAN MOODY
FLORIDA TODAY

Army recruiter Sgt. 1st. Class Timothy Burkett quickly slipped into a laundromat at a Palm Bay shopping center on Thursday.

Immediately he introduced himself and began selling the Army to 18-year-old Dieune Pierre, a 2005 Bayside High graduate who works part-time at Wal-Mart while he contemplates college.

The Army Reserves could be an option to help pay for college.

"I think it's a good idea," Pierre said. "I'll talk to my mom about it."



snip...

It appears the Army will fall short of its recruiting goal of 80,000 recruits this year. It would be the first time since 1999. The Army switched from the draft to an all-volunteer force 32 years ago.

"Yeah, we missed our mission, but we put more people in the Army this year than we did last year," said Sgt. 1st Class David Essinger, who teamed with Burkett on Thursday. Both men in their camouflage uniforms and black berets dodged the rain as they scouted prospects.

The Army fell short of its goals in February, March and April, but recruiters said their goals are not the same. Goals have been raised to meet the demands of an Army in the midst of an expansion from 482,000 soldiers in active force to 512,000.

Last year's recruiting goal was 77,000, up from 73,800 the year before.

...snip
 
95DevilleNS said:
Maybe better planning ahead of time would have been a good idea

I agree, President Clinton should have planned better all those times he said that 'those responsible will be dealt with' instead of cutting back military including intelligence gathering in the region.
 
...so does this mean Johnny supports substantial increases to the military budget? Increased bonus, recruiting, and equipment expenditures?

Or is he just throwing up an issue he doesn't really care about?
 
FreeFaller said:
By federal law, the maximum age to enlist in the military is age 35. This is because an enlisted person must be able to have 20 years of service, to be retirement eligible by the maximum retirement age of 55.
Regardless of federal law, the military services are allowed to impose more strict standards -- and they have, for active duty enlistments. The maximum age for non-prior service enlistments for active duty, for each of the services are:

Army - 34
Air Force - 27
Navy - 34
Marines - 28
Coast Guard - 27

The maximum age for enlistment in the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard Reserves is age 35. The maximum age for enlistment in the Army and Navy Reserves is age 39. The maximum enlistment age for the Air and Army National Guard is age 35, although this can sometimes be waived, depending on individual state requirements.

You're right, I Googled it and several sites did say 'age 39'... But it's for the national guard not regular army.
 
That's still old as dirt.

Could you imagine being a 39 year old private taking orders from a 19 year old corporal? :biggrin:
 
FreeFaller said:
That's still old as dirt.

Could you imagine being a 39 year old private taking orders from a 19 year old corporal? :biggrin:


Agreed....

Why the difference (27-34) within the main branches? Are some considered to be more physically taxing then others?
 
FreeFaller said:
Oh and we aren't begging for people...we're actually cutting jobs.


Force shaping Phase II evolves for officers in fiscal 2006

by Master Sgt. Mitch Gettle
Air Force Print News

8/24/2005 - WASHINGTON -- The Air Force’s officer corps is overmanned by about 4,000 Airmen.

Good point, but the original article was talking about the ARMY, not the A/F.
 
fossten said:
You've got to be kidding.

Have you noticed that we're at war?

:rolleyes:

Perhaps a better way to put it is that did you notice that we were attacked on 9/11? Americans do not allow for that kind of nonsense.
 
Calabrio said:
...so does this mean Johnny supports substantial increases to the military budget? Increased bonus, recruiting, and equipment expenditures?

Or is he just throwing up an issue he doesn't really care about?

No, but I'd be against any cuts in defense spending. What I AM for is cutting WASTE. No-bid contracts awarded to Halliburton for example. Billions wasted on corruption in rebuilding Iraq is another. The private sector has been pressured for decades to run more efficiently to maintain competitiveness against foreign competition (and each other domestically), and alot of that has been forced upon private industry from our governement (NAFTA/CAFTA, although rising stockholder expectations are also partially to blame). I don't see why that same government can't be held to the same standards for efficiency and minimizing waste. I am also agianst spreading our military resources too thin. If GW wants to go around invading and occupying terrorist-laden countries like a drunken sailor tucking bucks, he's going to have to PLAN for it better than he has.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Have you noticed how many recruitment commercials the Air Force, Army, Navy & Marines has out on TV now not to mention the enlisting age has been bumped to 39 for the Army, not sure about the other branches.

fossten said:
You've got to be kidding.

Have you noticed that we're at war?

Vitas said:
Perhaps a better way to put it is that did you notice that we were attacked on 9/11? Americans do not allow for that kind of nonsense.

Why are you guys getting your panties in a bunch? Nowhere did Deville imply that the increased recruitment efforts was a bad thing, or even unexpected. You two are a prime example of letting your itchy trigger fingers make you jump on the messenger before you even bother reading the message. STFU.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Why are you guys getting your panties in a bunch? Nowhere did Deville imply that the increased recruitment efforts was a bad thing, or even unexpected. You two are a prime example of letting your itchy trigger fingers make you jump on the messenger before you even bother reading the message. STFU.

I stand corrected. You obviously are for our country’s efforts to defend the situation.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Agreed....

Why the difference (27-34) within the main branches? Are some considered to be more physically taxing then others?

I'm not exatly sure. The Air Force has always been the hardest service to enter (highest ASVAB requirements) and has historically been more selective about who wears the blue. Not to put down any other branch of the service at all but the AF is a more technical force and therefore requires higher aptitudes as an average. It probably has to do with ones ability to quickly learn new tasks at certain ages but then again maybe not. Now, the Marines age limit is most likely due to the physical nature of the job and the fact that molding a Marine becomes harder the older a person gets.

Interesting fact: USAF personnel have always been considered REMF's (Rear Echelon Mother F***ers) with the Army and Marines doing the dirty work. But with this new type of warfare that we are faced with and due to decades of drawdown the USAF has taken to performing several jobs that were, until recently, the domain of the Army. As a matter of fact, nearly all Army and civilian convoys are escorted by "gun truck" crews of USAF personnel. These are not USAF Special Forces or Security Police, they are......bus drivers. Albeit, well trained, highly proffesional and extremely effective escorts.
 
Vitas said:
Perhaps a better way to put it is that did you notice that we were attacked on 9/11? Americans do not allow for that kind of nonsense.

Stop correcting me. I said exactly what I meant and I don't need you to put words in my mouth.
 
fossten said:
Stop correcting me. I said exactly what I meant and I don't need you to put words in my mouth.

Careful where you tread, you may be the next victim of this forum's pièce de résistance titled 'THE LEFTOCRATS'. :rolleyes:
 
95DevilleNS said:
Careful where you tread, you may be the next victim of this forum's pièce de résistance titled 'THE LEFTOCRATS'. :rolleyes:

I don't give a crap what Vitas says. He's already joined the list of name-callers by calling me an 'Unconscious Christian,' whatever the he77 that means.
 
Here's the transcript of a radio interview with the Secretary of the Army on the Rush Limbaugh show today:


RUSH: I'd like to welcome to the program Dr. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army. You were sworn in on November 19th, 2004. What were you doing prior to that, Dr. Harvey?

SECRETARY HARVEY: Rush, I was in the private sector. I was chairman of a couple of companies, on boards with several others. I had a long career with Westinghouse and ended up as the chief operating officer.

RUSH: And what was it that stood out for you among your work that the administration sought you out to be secretary of the Army?

SECRETARY HARVEY: Well, I had a long -- first of all, I fundamentally knew how to lead, manage, and change large organizations. Of course, as you know, the Pentagon is in a phase of transformation starting under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership, but furthermore, if you look to my corporate career, I was involved for the most of that within the defense and aerospace industry, involved in approximately, from contractor point of view, approximately 25 major perhaps. So I have a great knowledge of defense and have a great deal of experience in, as I say, leading, managing, and changing large organizations.

RUSH: Well, I have to say, I really am grateful, and a lot of us here are, for people like you, because you're in the snake pit now, and as evidence -- and you don't need it. I mean, you really don't. So I look at you as somebody who's willing to take all this on because you genuinely want to serve the country, and I would --

SECRETARY HARVEY: My primary motivation is to give back to the country what this great country has given to me. I've had a successful business career and I want to serve the country, and this is my time to serve.

RUSH: Well, we appreciate it, and I also appreciate your time in joining us, because I need to ask you about this Pentagon-contracted study. I don't know what a Pentagon-contracted study is, and you're in the Pentagon. It said that the Iraq war risks breaking the US Army, and the secretary of defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, had a briefing earlier this week saying, "No, the force is not broken." What is this all about? It's hard for me not to think that this is political. There's so many leaks that have come out of state, out of Pentagon, over the course of the six years of this administration, and I'm suspicious of this.

SECRETARY HARVEY: Well, I don't think this one was political. It was a study contracted to get kind of an outside point of view, and let me say that the conclusion that the Army is broke or the Army's stretched severely thin, we don't agree with. Thank you very much for your point of view but we don't agree with, because today's Army without a question is the most capable, best trained, best equipped, best led, and most experienced force this nation has fielded in well over a decade. So I can tell you that the Army is performing magnificently. I think you see it in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think you see it in the response to Hurricane Katrina, and Rita. So I think the evidence shows otherwise.
RUSH: Well, the report says that soldiers and brigades are being deployed more frequently and for longer periods than what the Army believes is appropriate in order to attract and retain recruits, basically. It's puzzling to me that the Pentagon can ask for this, the report comes out, and then the people that ask for it say, "No, this is wrong." It probably confuses a lot of people.

SECRETARY HARVEY: Well, I'm sorry it does confuse people, but the evidence says otherwise, because last year we had the highest retention rate in the Army we had in five years. And I think retention is the greatest indicator of morale and stress on the force and all these other statements. As I said, we retained 69,500, the highest in five years, and I think if you think about that retention, it's a great indicator of a number of things. First of all, it says the soldier is satisfied and has confidence in the leadership. The soldier is satisfied that he has the equipment he needs to do his job. The soldier is totally satisfied with the job he's doing and the difference he's making in defending the peace and freedom of this country, and that he likes his quality of life.

So all those factors are answered by the retention rate, and if you want to get more detailed you just look at the retention rate of the 3rd Infantry division that's just rotating out of Iraq this month. They beat their retention goal by 36% and that goal was the highest that anybody can remember in their history. That was, by the way, their second deployment. So all the indicators in the general retention and specifically with the unit that had been deployed twice now in Iraq indicate that the Army is not broke, that the soldiers have high morale, and they are deriving a lot of satisfaction out of the difference they're making in the world, and they're very, very proud of being the liberators of 50 million people and providing them with a democratic way of life.

RUSH: The Associated Press is reporting that a retired Army officer wrote the report, Andrew Krepinevich...

SECRETARY HARVEY: That's correct.

RUSH: Do you know him?

SECRETARY HARVEY: I do.

RUSH: You do. Well, he's concluded that the Army can't sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency, and he cites as evidence the Army's 2005 recruiting slump which they say missed the goal for the first time since '99, and I've read just the opposite. I've read that the recruiting goal not having been met is a trumped up story, and it sounds like it is from what you just said.

SECRETARY HARVEY: Well, we were talking retention, Rush. Now, by the way, I think correlating recruiting goals with stress on the force is not the proper correlation. A recruiting goal have nothing per se to do with the stress on the force. It's retention, and as I say retention is at a five-year high. Now, addressing recruiting, we did miss our '05 goal, but let me put that in perspective and tell you what we've done and what we're doing right now. We had a goal last year of 73,400 in round numbers. The ten-year average of our recruiting was 74,400. So we missed it by slightly less than a thousand or approximately a thousand. So historically we did not do bad against or our performance was not that out of line with past performances. We are trying to grow the Army, so we have a goal of 80,000. So that is our challenge. For the last seven months we have made our monthly goals -- and the reason that is, is because in the early spring when we started missing goals we developed and implemented a number of initiatives from increasing the number of recruiters, to increasing the incentives, to changing and enhancing our advertising campaigns. So we took a whole basketful of initiatives, and I think that has a positive effect, and as I say, we're on track so far this year, but make no mistake about it: it is challenging, but we are being, I think, very proactive about it, and so far, so good this year.
RUSH: I think, to me, just as an average citizen, we've got essentially an all-volunteer Army, and everybody that signs up for the Army these days knows pretty much the odds are pretty good they're going to go off somewhere into combat or into the theater of battle.

SECRETARY HARVEY: That's right.

RUSH: And I think it's profoundly positive, says something tremendous about -- when you look at the diversity of this country, it strikes me how you can go to a city and you can find 19 and 20 and 21-year-olds partying like there's no worry about anything in the world, and other parts of the country, in the same city, you can find same age people who have a totally different outlook who want to join the military in these times, in a time of war to defend and protect the country -- and I'm not criticizing either side. I just think it's amazing. No draft is required. There's no conscription here. I think this is something that the American people instinctively know and are very proud of the US Military.

SECRETARY HARVEY: I can say on my part I'm very proud of our young soldiers and our young men and women who decide to serve. Like I said at the beginning, you know, I'm giving back to this great country, and my opinion is that serving our nation is the greatest work of life, and our young soldiers and the recruits that decide to do that have made the same decision. I tell all the young people out there that the Army is a great institution, a respected institution, and if they join it they're going to gain a skill, they're going to improve their citizenship, but most important they're going to be part of the organization that -- an organization that the nation relies on to preserve its peace and freedom and to defend its democracy, and that's what our soldiers are doing.

RUSH: Did this report address specifically the Army, or all branches?

SECRETARY HARVEY: It was really focused on the Army, and, quite frankly, Rush, the suggestions that were made in that we're already doing. Likewise, the suggestions in the Perry report that came out a couple days ago, all the suggestions and recommendations we have been taking action for at least the last one to two years on all the recommendations. So we're moving out, and we have moved out, and we will continue to implement initiatives by which we preserve this all-volunteer force. Because as you noted, the quality is high, and it's all volunteer, and it's doing the mission. So we're doing everything we need to do in my opinion to preserve and sustain that all-volunteer force. Very important for the country. It's certainly not my Army. It's not the chief of staff's Army. It's America's Army, and it's the nation's Army, and it's very important that we sustain that high quality that we have, and that's through all volunteer.

RUSH: Well, Dr. Harvey, I appreciate your time, because, you know, the people, because it's a volunteer force, because it's a time of war, because there are so many harping voices of a political nature saying that soldiers cannot hack it, they don't have what it takes, when they read a report that says the Army's broken, it concerns them, so I thank you for your time to come on and address it.

SECRETARY HARVEY: That's just the opposite the case. I think, as I've said this afternoon, I appreciate being on your show and good afternoon. I'll be glad to come back any time.

RUSH: All right. We'll be glad to have you. Dr. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army, back in just a moment.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top