NationStates Jolt Archive


Experts warn Army may face decline in quality

Upitatanium
23-08-2005, 00:47
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/expertswarnarmymayfacedeclineinquality;_ylt=AoesagfPOJu5RgtuDoHPmDdH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYw M3MTg-

I was wondering when I'd hear stories of the Army beginning to burn out.

If the Army maintains the size of its force in
Iraq over the next several years, it could risk a decline in the quality of the force and other severe problems, a Republican senator, defense analysts and retired military officers say.

On Saturday, the service's top general said that the Army has contingency plans for maintaining troop levels of 100,000 soldiers in Iraq over the next four years. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said the plan is a worst-case scenario if the United States is unable to reduce its force in the face of a stubborn insurgency.

The United States now has about 138,000 troops in Iraq. About 100,000 are Army soldiers, including National Guard and Army Reserve troops. As Army chief of staff, Schoomaker's job is to train and equip the nation's largest military branch. Decisions about the size and makeup of the U.S. combat force in Iraq will be made by others, including commanders in the region and Bush administration officials.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said again Sunday that it's time to begin crafting an exit strategy. "We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on This Week on ABC. "I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

"The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together," Hagel said. (Related story: Hagel says Iraq war looking more like Vietnam)

On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, counseled people to be patient. "The worst-case scenario is not staying four years; the worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution."

If the
Pentagon doesn't reduce U.S. ground forces in Iraq, the Army may face challenges in retention of soldiers.

So far this year, the Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals. The Army and Army Guard are likely to miss their goals in 2005 by several thousand new soldiers, a development that could leave some units short of troops. The Army's top recruiter, Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, has said that 2006 could be even worse.

Some fear a decline in the quality of the force. Retired major general Bob Scales, former commandant of the Army War College, says without a reduction in U.S. ground forces in Iraq, soldiers are facing "third and fourth" tours of duty in Iraq. "You'll see the quality of the Army atrophy," Scales said.

Scales said it would become more difficult to recruit talented people, and young officers and midcareer enlisted soldiers, not easy to replace, could choose to leave.

Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, said he could envision a repeat of one negative byproduct of the Vietnam War: an exodus of experienced non-commissioned officers. "Are we going to break the force? We don't know," Van Riper said. "But a lot of key non-commissioned officers could end up leaving" if sent back repeatedly.

Non-commissioned officers such as sergeants and staff sergeants form the backbone of a fighting force as leaders and mentors to young soldiers.

It's possible that U.S. troop levels in Iraq will come down as early as 2006 and avert what some view as a potential crisis. Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said last month that a withdrawal of up to 30,000 U.S. troops might be possible next year.

Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have said reductions are possible, but they stressed that there is no timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Now how is this going to get fixed? I know some people are thinking 'draft' but how plausible is that? After all, instigating a draft would be like admitting defeat.
Mesatecala
23-08-2005, 00:51
A draft is not needed.

We should reduce the force by next year as planned.
Kecibukia
23-08-2005, 00:54
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/expertswarnarmymayfacedeclineinquality;_ylt=AoesagfPOJu5RgtuDoHPmDdH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYw M3MTg-

I was wondering when I'd hear stories of the Army beginning to burn out.


Now how is this going to get fixed? I know some people are thinking 'draft' but how plausible is that? After all, instigating a draft would be like admitting defeat.

All the hype about the recruiting goals are just that. A large number of soldiers are re-enlisting or going from reserve/guard to active. These numbers are not counted as new enlistments. My source? Ten guys (out of less than 200)from my unit have re-upped or gone active over the last 3 months. Only one has gotten out.

There was more of a chance of burnout during the Clinton years when operations were still heavy and cutbacks were constant.
Armed Military States
23-08-2005, 00:56
A draft is not needed.

We should reduce the force by next year as planned.

Definitely. I think bringing up the draft would be political suicide for Bush, since he already stressed that the draft wouldn't be braught in to fight this war. It would be yet one more lie and pile of bullshit that flows from his administration's lips.

Next thing you know, he'll be invading Iran. Can you spell "impeachment?" No, it won't happen, but one can always hope.
Lotus Puppy
23-08-2005, 01:28
Much larger volunteer militaries have existed in war time. My suggestion would be to increase pay and to remove the army cap now in place. At the very least, the military should rely on active duty troops, using reserves only during a crisis.