thedrifter
08-10-03, 06:56 AM
08-06-2003
Will the Army Troop Rotation Plan Work?
By William F. Sauerwein
The U.S. Army, overwhelmed with long-term troop commitments, has proposed a troop rotation plan for the units in Iraq.
The main focus of this plan is the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which has been in the Persian Gulf region since last August. However, the Army lacks the active duty strength for pulling this off while maintaining adequate strength in other potential hotspots.
The July 28th edition of Army Times included an article, “1 Year Tour?” that clearly outlines the Army’s dilemma and its proposed solutions. The service is hard-pressed to maintain global commitments, yet relieve combat-weary troops in Iraq. The biggest dilemma is where can it get fresh troops with so many ongoing missions?
We have arrived at this dreary point following a 12-year journey that began with the collapse of the Soviet Union, our main adversary since the end of World War II. Anti-military members of Congress demanded a “peace dividend” and a massive reduction of defense spending. Virtually no one thought of a global strategy to meet new challenges, or the power vacuum created by the Soviet collapse.
The Clinton Administration vowed to put foreign policy on the back burner, but soon found that impossible. For almost a decade, our reduced forces were worn down covering missions from Somalia to Haiti to the Balkans. Simultaneously, we had to answer the continuing threats from North Korea and Iraq.
As the operations tempo (optempo) increased, the active forces became stretched and strained to the limit. This placed more of these missions on the reserve components, taking them on six-month deployments. As these deployments increased in frequency, morale among the troops slipped, and recruitment and retention suffered.
It seems no one in authority then or now understands that while our all-volunteer force is strong, it is also fragile. The soldiers, both active and reserve, serve because they want to, and can leave upon completing their obligation. If these troops face back-to-back deployments with no end in sight they may seek other employment.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks created a national outrage, which momentarily minimized the effects of the previous decade. Soldiers now had a real mission, seeking out and punishing those who brutally attacked us. However, the decay stemming from a decade of mismanagement soon became apparent with the new commitments.
We suddenly needed trained troops everywhere, from providing homeland security to meeting the enemy in Afghanistan. The Pentagon mobilized thousands of reservists for filling the gaps caused by our reduced active-duty strength. Confronting the “Axis of Evil” required large numbers of troops, spread over the world in both combat and support roles.
Now, almost two years after 9/11, we find that our over-extended forces are critically in need of rest. Again, with the current array of hostile areas in the world, we are hard-pressed to relieve them and maintain our readiness posture. The Army Times article detailed the grim picture of every regular Army division. Only one is not currently dedicated to a foreign mission.
Unless the Bush administration and Congress take action to increase the Army’s end-strength, the next question will be, which mission do we shortchange?
William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=162&rnd=742.3478417918345
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Will the Army Troop Rotation Plan Work?
By William F. Sauerwein
The U.S. Army, overwhelmed with long-term troop commitments, has proposed a troop rotation plan for the units in Iraq.
The main focus of this plan is the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which has been in the Persian Gulf region since last August. However, the Army lacks the active duty strength for pulling this off while maintaining adequate strength in other potential hotspots.
The July 28th edition of Army Times included an article, “1 Year Tour?” that clearly outlines the Army’s dilemma and its proposed solutions. The service is hard-pressed to maintain global commitments, yet relieve combat-weary troops in Iraq. The biggest dilemma is where can it get fresh troops with so many ongoing missions?
We have arrived at this dreary point following a 12-year journey that began with the collapse of the Soviet Union, our main adversary since the end of World War II. Anti-military members of Congress demanded a “peace dividend” and a massive reduction of defense spending. Virtually no one thought of a global strategy to meet new challenges, or the power vacuum created by the Soviet collapse.
The Clinton Administration vowed to put foreign policy on the back burner, but soon found that impossible. For almost a decade, our reduced forces were worn down covering missions from Somalia to Haiti to the Balkans. Simultaneously, we had to answer the continuing threats from North Korea and Iraq.
As the operations tempo (optempo) increased, the active forces became stretched and strained to the limit. This placed more of these missions on the reserve components, taking them on six-month deployments. As these deployments increased in frequency, morale among the troops slipped, and recruitment and retention suffered.
It seems no one in authority then or now understands that while our all-volunteer force is strong, it is also fragile. The soldiers, both active and reserve, serve because they want to, and can leave upon completing their obligation. If these troops face back-to-back deployments with no end in sight they may seek other employment.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks created a national outrage, which momentarily minimized the effects of the previous decade. Soldiers now had a real mission, seeking out and punishing those who brutally attacked us. However, the decay stemming from a decade of mismanagement soon became apparent with the new commitments.
We suddenly needed trained troops everywhere, from providing homeland security to meeting the enemy in Afghanistan. The Pentagon mobilized thousands of reservists for filling the gaps caused by our reduced active-duty strength. Confronting the “Axis of Evil” required large numbers of troops, spread over the world in both combat and support roles.
Now, almost two years after 9/11, we find that our over-extended forces are critically in need of rest. Again, with the current array of hostile areas in the world, we are hard-pressed to relieve them and maintain our readiness posture. The Army Times article detailed the grim picture of every regular Army division. Only one is not currently dedicated to a foreign mission.
Unless the Bush administration and Congress take action to increase the Army’s end-strength, the next question will be, which mission do we shortchange?
William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=162&rnd=742.3478417918345
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: