PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Army deployments will become longer; something has to give



thedrifter
04-16-07, 09:36 AM
Posted on Mon, Apr. 16, 2007
U.S. Army deployments will become longer; something has to give

McClatchy-Tribune News Service

(MCT)

The following editorial appeared in the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer on Friday, April 13.

X X X

American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan shoulder a heavy load, and it's getting heavier.

The burden is not just the many pounds of body armor and gear that soldiers lug around, and it's not just the obvious dangers of combat they face. From now on, battle-zone deployments for U.S. Army units will stretch three months longer, 15 months in all instead of 12. The first combat units in Iraq to be affected are those that were due home this summer. Eventually the three-month extension will include about 100,000 soldiers.

That's a lot to ask of the volunteers who enlist in our defense. Truth is, it's close to being too much to ask.

These will be the longest combat tours for the Army since World War II. And the time allowed at home bases such as Fort Bragg between combat tours - "dwell time" for training and catching up with family life - will be 12 months, less than the time spent abroad.

A lot to ask indeed. Just think of the young families apart for over a year.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the move this week. "Difficult but necessary," he said. Fifteen-month Army combat tours (Marines have shorter, more frequent deployments; Guard and Reserve units have 12 months) will keep up force levels for the current "surge" in Iraq.

The schedule will reduce uncertainty for military families - lately, units have had their tours extended piecemeal - and ensure that the 12 months allowed back home isn't cut further. Ideally, though, dwell time should be two years, not one. That's a measure of the pressure the armed forces are under.

Gates rejected claims that the ground-combat military - four years into the Iraq war and five years after U.S. forces ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan - has been "broken" by the ordeal. In a sense he's right: recruitment goals, by and large, are being met, and retention rates soldier along, as patriots admirably report for duty and re-enlist in the fight.

Yet all is not well. The Army has lowered standards for its recruits and pays out hundreds of millions of dollars a year in re-enlistment bonuses. The officer corps is thin in numbers. Equipment is wearing out fast. Many units are now on their third combat tour. If conflict arises elsewhere, we'd be hard-pressed.

The weight of war has been borne by a relatively small number of Americans. Now we're asking them to do still more. For all the talk in Washington of deadlines and withdrawal dates, of staying the course and winning with the surge, the troops are the key. In fairness to them, this can't go on forever.

Ellie