NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html

Army stretched to breaking point, report says

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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. (U.S. troop levels)

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 December 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.

Interesting read. Time for a draft to bulk up numbers.....

Free and clear of the draft bullet here. Timing is everything.

Rumsfeld was asked about that report's findings about an hour ago, he said that the report must be based on old data or just plain wrong because they're meeting recruitment and retention goals for the last seven months.

He said much more as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-01-25-rumsfeld_x.htm

Hmm. Perhaps they should look into more of the remote control stuffs. They've already equipped some remote control scout plane/glider thingies with Hellfire missiles a while back. There was a thing in Time on it.

Or maybe we should just stop invading so many countries that we become this thin spread to begin with? Hmm?

Well, if America keeps this up, I can't wait untill I'm out of college and jobless and then suddenly: BAM! Uncle Sam pulls my number on the lotto! What do I win? Hmm....

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html

Army stretched to breaking point, report says



Interesting read. Time for a draft to bulk up numbers.....

Naw, they are just trying to get the politicians to restore the standing army size to pre clinton personel levels. It makes personel mangement much easier to have more idle units and helps to retain more seasoned troops. A draft would not even become a serious consideration until their needs were in the 2 million range.

Naw, they are just trying to get the politicians to restore the standing army size to pre clinton personel levels. It makes personel mangement much easier to have more idle units and helps to retain more seasoned troops. A draft would not even become a serious consideration until their needs were in the 2 million range.

Well, it kinda puts further immediate action (ie Iran) on hold for the forseeable future doesn't it?

I mean when the army begins to get war weary, thats not a good sign.

How does one go about fixing this? Can it be fixed?

Hmm. Perhaps they should look into more of the remote control stuffs. They've already equipped some remote control scout plane/glider thingies with Hellfire missiles a while back. There was a thing in Time on it.


It doesn't work like that even though they try and market it that way. The truth is that technology actually increase the need for personel, not decrease it. It does however shift personel to different areas making it appear that you need fewer people. For instance you hear of the predator drones that fire up an enemy hideout without a pilot. It's true there is no pilot in the cockpit, but there are 2 people manning the controls, 1 RTO and a fire control officer back at the rear calling the shots for a single bird.
The only accurate way to keep tabs on these people and their toys is to monitor the support ratios for the given units. I can only speak for airborne units as fact, but the personel cost for a single ranger unit is thirteen. In other words, it takes 13 people to support 1 single ranger in combat. Over time one can use these numbers to place an actual cost of increased technology, but these figures are never considered until after the fact.

Well, it kinda puts further immediate action (ie Iran) on hold for the forseeable future doesn't it?

I mean when the army begins to get war weary, thats not a good sign.

How does one go about fixing this? Can it be fixed?

US military doctrine requires they maintain the ability to sustain combat operations on four fronts at all times. With a 500,000 man standing Army I would qestion their ability to accomplish this at the present time. That said however, wht is going on at present cannot be defined as anything other than policing, and trainning with the bulk of personel serving two purposes. Show of force by their shear presence, and two as a functioning pre staging area for further operations. All the preperations are in place and there is not a logistics nightmare mounting full scale combat operations elsewhere in the region.

As far as being weary. Well, anytime you are stationed far from home there is a degree of that, but for actual combat fatigue only a tiny fraction of the pesonel stationed there are actively engaging enemy forces in the remote villages and along the borders so that isn't a very big issue. Hell these guys actually get to take leave and come home if they have the time. Some units are forcing everyone to take leave while there.

Thier problems occur when it is time for enlisted men to either re up or ETS. There is always a very strong feeling that once you have done a combat tour, you have done your duty and it's time to move on. If the solider realizes there is almost a 100% chance he is going to do another tour he's pretty much guarenteed to tell em to f$%K off, which means all that money invested and experience he brings is lost. Better to have him want to re up and train soliders or contribute his experience in other ways.

The US does very definately need a standing army of at least 750,000 to serve at their peak ability though. I got that straight from one of the men that authored the doctrine for the 4th generation of warfare.

Since we're killing insurgents at a ratio of 28 to 1, one wonders whether or not the insurgents are strapped as well.

Since some Iraqi insurgents have resorted to recruiting people with Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers, I would say the answer is Yes.

Well, it kinda puts further immediate action (ie Iran) on hold for the forseeable future doesn't it?

I doubt any wars will occur for awhile yet because:

1) No foreign army will risk a world coalition knocking on there doors for attacking a foreign state (I think Yugoslavia was the last nation to try it and that isn't even a country anymore)

2) The U.S won't attack any nations at this time since:

A) there is no need
B) no other nation will aid the U.S at this time
C) look at how long it was before Iraq was invaded if another nation is going to be attacked it will take about a year to prepare forces (at which time Iraq and Afghanistan will need less forces)

3) No nations are looking to start a war even Iran has stated there nuclear research is for peace only and N.Korea seems content

4) if any war should happen to break out it won't just be a few nations invading it will be a U.N coalition

5) if the U.S finds itself in trouble a stream of recruits would emerge eager to make sure the U.S doesn’t surrender so I doubt a draft would be necessary

As you can see there isn’t even a calm before the storm so this is a good time to get on with our lives (though this is the theorists lives so we got awhile to go till there proved right and decide to stop the press)

US military doctrine requires they maintain the ability to sustain combat operations on four fronts at all times. With a 500,000 man standing Army I would qestion their ability to accomplish this at the present time.


It depends on the kind of war. The Army is supposed to fight "two large regional wars and one smaller one", the "2 1/2 wars policy". Let's consider this. North Korea invades South Korea- 200,000 US Army troops would be more than enough to win a conventional conflict there, especially if you count South Korean and Japanese forces. Iran attacks the Gulf, and another 200,000 troops deploy. A small crisis arises in Latin America, and less than 25,000 are needed. The other 75,000 either rotate out with the other forces or maintain our presence abroad in other places, for example as embassy guards.

What you guys are forgetting is that the bulk of the fighting in Iraq is being done by US Army reservists, who make up 40-60% of the force there. So they make the problem a lot easier. If you want to hear of an army that's "overextended", look at Britian- they have 10,000 men trying to hold all of south Iraq against powerful Shi'ia militias.

Since we're killing insurgents at a ratio of 28 to 1, one wonders whether or not the insurgents are strapped as well.

Since some Iraqi insurgents have resorted to recruiting people with Down's Syndrome as suicide bombers, I would say the answer is Yes.

Without a doubt they are hurt and hurt badly. I think the greatest evidence of that was shown with Osama's broadcast. While his threat got all the attention, suggesting a truce (and rebuilding) is straight of the of Arafat book of tricks that europe and Israel fell for time and time again.

Never fear! The UK is sending Prince Harry!
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/harry.jpg

Well, if America keeps this up, I can't wait untill I'm out of college and jobless and then suddenly: BAM! Uncle Sam pulls my number on the lotto! What do I win? Hmm....
If you go to college, and your jobless, it's your own damn fault.

US military doctrine requires they maintain the ability to sustain combat operations on four fronts at all times. With a 500,000 man standing Army I would qestion their ability to accomplish this at the present time. -SNIP-
500k? With the Active Duty troops,Reserves and National guard, we have 2.4 million. I'm wondering where your getting your numbers from.

I also think it's of note to add that ALL the commanders on the ground have stated that they have NEVER been denied a single troop request they have asked for, and have stated their utmost opposition to the assertions in the so called "study". So how are we stretched to the breaking point again? Partisanism is leeching it's way into ALL fabrics of society, and frankly, I'm sickened by it.

I also think it's of note to add that ALL the commanders on the ground have stated that they have NEVER been denied a single troop request they have asked for, and have stated their utmost opposition to the assertions in the so called "study". So how are we stretched to the breaking point again? Partisanism is leeching it's way into ALL fabrics of society, and frankly, I'm sickened by it.

Well it appears your 'on the ground' officers' reports conflict with the top brass... ie those who actually make and shape policy. So, forgive me for placing more importance on the report of a Four Star General then a Sgt. in Tikrit.

Partisanship is good sometimes. It shows that some people don't blindly follow like sheep.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/army.study.ap/index.html

Army stretched to breaking point, report says



Interesting read. Time for a draft to bulk up numbers.....

A draft isn't needed to bring up troop levels. Congress increasing the cap (and possibly a pay rise) is all that's needed.

Also of note, Lt Gen James Helmly has already said the reserves are in trouble due to overuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4150749.stm

Well it appears your 'on the ground' officers' reports conflict with the top brass... ie those who actually make and shape policy. So, forgive me for placing more importance on the report of a Four Star General then a Sgt. in Tikrit.

Bremer's also said that more troops were needed from the start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7053-2004Oct4.html

Partisanship is good sometimes. It shows that some people don't blindly follow like sheep.

:confused: In my book excess partisanship equals blindly following the party.

500k? With the Active Duty troops,Reserves and National guard, we have 2.4 million. I'm wondering where your getting your numbers from.

Regular Army = 500,000. The number does not include Reserves, National Guard or Marines whose support is provided primairly by the navy.

Well it appears your 'on the ground' officers' reports conflict with the top brass... ie those who actually make and shape policy. So, forgive me for placing more importance on the report of a Four Star General then a Sgt. in Tikrit.

Partisanship is good sometimes. It shows that some people don't blindly follow like sheep.

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

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.

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.

I also think it's of note to add that ALL the commanders on the ground have stated that they have NEVER been denied a single troop request they have asked for, and have stated their utmost opposition to the assertions in the so called "study". So how are we stretched to the breaking point again? Partisanism is leeching it's way into ALL fabrics of society, and frankly, I'm sickened by it.

It is not a matter of Partisanship at all. It only appears to be a conflict because you have one group saying they have everything they need and you have the political brass doing what they have to do to gain or sustain future operations. Let me explain it like this. You have a controlling body that is the equivilant of the civilian labor department. They are responsible for providing a continuous flow of replacements in addition to providing personel for the expansion of our Airborne and Special Operations forces (exact numbers are classified, but it would knock your socks off). Anyway, to be able to provide these personel without delay from every imaginable MOS they have to have a pool of troops to draw from just as the civilian work force does. To be able to convince politicians that they need the money, they have to have so called "experts" prepare silly studies documenting the need for the funding, otherwise they will get nothing.

On the other hand, you have Col Assbuster in charge of the gungho division on the ground in Iraq covering every imaginable possibility he can think of occuring. The more people he has, the more possibilities he can cover, so he naturally is going to draw as many people from the pool as he can get his hands on.

What appears to be a conflict is in fact nothing but different responsibilities in obtaining the common goal. It is actually a non story unless your goal is to create one.

snip.

I never said it was 'broken'. I and the article stated it was 'stretched'- do you need a definiton of the difference between 'broken' and 'stretched'?

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

This was what I was pointing at. It does not bode well for future operations or possibily future morale and sign ups, I would have thought.

Bremer's also said that more troops were needed from the start.

Yeah, and look how far that got! Thats kinda my point.


In my book excess partisanship equals blindly following the party.

Sorry, my bad. From a multi party system- partisanship to me would be not blindly following merely whoever is in charge at the time. At least other parties offer different solutions... but I suppose in the States....

A draft isn't needed to bring up troop levels. Congress increasing the cap (and possibly a pay rise) is all that's needed.

That's exactly what's happening- the army is giving a 2.4% pay raise this year.


What you guys are forgetting is that the bulk of the fighting in Iraq is being done by US Army reservists, who make up 40-60% of the force there. So they make the problem a lot easier. If you want to hear of an army that's "overextended", look at Britian- they have 10,000 men trying to hold all of south Iraq against powerful Shi'ia militias.

There will be no draft.

That's exactly what's happening- the army is giving a 2.4% pay raise this year.


Increasing the cap set by congress is what will increase the numbers. A pay rise won't allow numbers beyond what congress says the military is permited.

Well, at least it compensates for slumping recruitment. If the situation really was desperate, and we really needed more troops, the military would just give longer tours of duty. But, as it is, the situation is improving and more troops are pulling out.