Army Grads Not Staying

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
1

<p>Senator Jim Webb's Floor Remarks on his Amendment (S. 2012) to the Defense Authorization Act<br>
Tuesday, July 10, 2007</p>

<p>..."After four years of combat, we must provide our troops and their families with a predictable operational tempo that has adequate dwell time between deployments, and we owe this to our active participants, but also we owe this to the participants in the National Guard and Reserves. </p>

<p>"Why is this bipartisan amendment so important? We all know the reason well enough. A small group of people is answering the call time and again. The result is that our ground forces, in particular, are being burnt out. The evidence is everywhere. We see it in following retention of experienced mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. The increasing attrition rate among Army accompaniment grade officers is serious enough that our committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, included a reporting requirement on the Army's retention programs and incentives in the authorization bill that is now before us. </p>

<p>"We see it in the West Point classes, 2000 and 2001, the most recent classes that finished their initial five-year obligations. We're told that their attrition is five times the levels that it was before Iraq for such classes. The statistics that we have been shown indicate that 54% of the West Point class of 2000 left the Army by the end of last year, and that 46% of the class of 2001 left the Army by the end of last year.</p>

<p>"Senator Warner mentioned Admiral Mullin, who is a long time friend and Naval Academy classmate, now waiting for confirmation as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was recently asked what was the thing about which he was most concerned, and he said the Army, and we're not talking about equipment, we're talking about the Army. </p>

<h2>"The Marine Corps is also seeing an upward trend in the loss of critical mid-grade noncommissioned officers. We also find new evidence of troop burnout in numerous mental health issues arising from multiple combat deployments. These are statistically observable. There's a new report by the Department of Defense that documents a higher rate of mental health issues for service members deploying multiple times or for more than six months. A survey of service members after their deployment found that 38% of our soldiers, 31% of our marines, and 49% of the National Guard report psychological problems following their combat deployments..."</h2>

<p>Full text of these remarks is available at the Library of Congress THOMAS Congressional Record:</p>

<p><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/%7Er110fPTL8X:e16105:%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110fPTL8X:e16105:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>This can’t come as any surprise to anyone given the rotations and redeployments our troops have been put through over the past 4 years. One question that I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer too is how did we get here? During the first Iraq engagement our deployed troop levels were 3 to 4 times what they are now. How did we reach a point in about a decade where we have a little over 100,000 troops in the field and we’re at the end of our rope? In a nation of 300 million no less….</p>

3

<p>"How did we reach a point in about a decade where we have a little over 100,000 troops in the field and we’re at the end of our rope?"</p>

<p>It is the inevitable outcome of an all-volunteer force during time of war. It doesn't work. The first gulf war was a relatively short affair---not even comparable in terms of the mission or the time frame to the current situation in Iraq and Afganistan.</p>

4

<p>There's no question retention in an all volunteer force is going to be an issue during an extended conflict, especially in a scenario such as this, unfortunately the issue is not that simple. The fundamental problem at the outset of the current Iraq conflict was the overall force size that was available. Compared to 1991 where at the peak of the last conflict we had a combined force of almost 700,000 deployed. Going back to 2004 the combined forces of the Army/Reservists/National guard alone was already down almost 600,000 troops from that previous timeframe, a reduction of about 1/3.... if the force size had not been reduced to the levels they were allowed to, the current situation in terms of mandatory extension of tours and rotations would not have been necessary. Every service man or woman understands that at times of war the rules can change day to day. In the end I think every soldier, sailor airman or marine would prefer if we kept our word whenever possible, and not fall back on forced measures to keep the ranks filled because we allowed the size of our armed services to decline. When you fail to do what is expected, you inevitably loose trust, when that happens you are going to loose people.</p>

5

<p>Actually I think it is that simple. Had the first Gulf War gone on for 4 plus years we would have faced similar issues with an all volunteer force. Looking at the number of troops deployed worldwide by the US the past 35 or so years, the overall decline has been happening since the mid 1970's as far as total number. The period spans muliple administarations from both political partys. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the party in power and the troop levels deployed. Interestingly, the biggest increase of troops deployed in the last 35 years happened under Jimmy Carter. Historically the trend is that the longer a period of relative peace lasts, the lower our troop levels fall.
1972-1973 1.945 million troops deployed under Richard Nixon (down from Vietnam)
1975-1976 1.884 million troops deployed under Gerald Ford (another decrease)
1977-1980 2.053 million troops deployed under Jimmy Carter (first post-Vietnam increase)
1981-1984 2.113 million troops deployed under Ronald Reagan (another increase)
1985-1988 2.158million troops (another slight increase)
1989-1992 1.992 million troops under George H.W. Bush(significant decrease)
1993-1996 1.576 million troops under Bill Clinton (significant decrease)
1997-2000 1.403 million troops under Bill clinton (another decrease)
2001-2004 1.414 million troops undr George W Bush (no significant change from Clinton)</p>

<p>If the population couldn't be relied on to staff an all volunteer army in WW2 without a draft, what makes us think it will voluntarily adequately staff the Iraq war in 2007, without one? Planning was part of the problem. We assumed that troop levels were acceptable given the level of our technology on the battlefield. Frankly, I think that view has been part of Pentagon doctrine sionce Vietnam. We underestimated the challenge of replacing an enemy that could be defeated with conventional arms and tactics with another enemy that appears to be very resistant to conventional military force.
In every previous significant military excursion we have relied on a draft. Bar none.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
1989-1992 1.992 million troops under George H.W. Bush(significant decrease)
1993-1996 1.576 million troops under Bill Clinton (significant decrease)
1997-2000 1.403 million troops under Bill clinton (another decrease)
2001-2004 1.414 million troops undr George W Bush (no significant change from Clinton)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See a pattern?</p>

<p>You simply cannot draw down AND expand your operations.</p>

<p>While I can see shogun's point, I'm still not sold on the idea of the draft. Too much crap comes in with the good stuff. Additionally, I continue to believe that if a nation cannot voluntarily muster the forces needed to defend itself, then it doesn't deserve to survive.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think we are seeing the slow slide of America into obscurity and ruin caused by poor leadership, public apathy, and entirely too cushy a lifestyle to be bothered by such whimsical trivialities as maniacal terrorists armed with nukes. It began during Vietnam, and only briefly slowed down during Reagan.</p>

<p>It happened to Rome, and now it seems to be happening to us, I'm sorry to say. :(</p>

<p>I may be wrong in these assessments, but there it is...</p>

7

<p>


</p>

<p>Using that logic, we should all be speaking German today. ;)</p>

8

<p>A volunteer force is very viable but it costs money. During the Rumsfield "administration", the apathy for the common airman, sailor, soldier, and marine was obvious. Our military was treated as disposable commodities. I don't know if things are changing or not. We also have to remember that contractors are doing much of the work previously done by the military. They are not cheap. And they have to be hard for morale when the soldier busting his a$$ looks over the steam table and the cook is making 10 times his salary. I remember the last time I saw the number of contractors in Iraq, I choked. If I remember correctly it was in excess of 50,000.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
Using that logic, we should all be speaking German today.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And we would have deserved it.</p>

<p>You should also recall that, despite the draft pre-WWII, the recruiting offices were FLOODED on 12/08/41. At the beginning of "Band of Brothers", one of the vets discusses how a few guys in his town committed suicide when they were found to be ineligible for service due to physical limitations.</p>

<p>In his words, "it was a different time". :(</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
You simply cannot draw down AND expand your operations.

[/quote]
...</p>

<p>precisely</p>

<p>our armed forces did not decline by 600,000 because those soldiers walked away and could not be replaced without a draft, the decrease came as a direct result of a conscious decision by our political leadership to reduce forces. As a consequence of that reduction we find ourselves in a situation where we have to demand, not ask, for sacrifices on the part of the few; and that has lead to people walking away from military service. If each of them was not asked to do the work and tour of two soldiers, there is no doubt in my mind that many of these men and women would still be in their respective services. </p>

<p>I have no problem with the idea of a draft, I think service of some type should be compulsory, but that concept is not shared by many, even less at a time of war, and not at all politically viable. On one hand a draft brings in a more diverse group of people and points of view and distributes the responsibility for service over a broad spectrum of citizens (though there will always be some with the ability to obtain deferments). The flip side of that is people that don't want to be there are going to leave first chance they get and turnover is expensive and not very helpful when your goal is to maintain your armed forces at a high level of readiness. Take your pick..to me the greatest danger we face comes from the disconnect much of our nation has from the military and the war as a whole. In the end the kind and quality of life we enjoy will ultimately be a reflection of our national priorities... If people are more interested in what Paris Hilton is up to these days than President Ahmadinejad then we're SOL. </p>

<p>As to inability to sustain ourselves without a draft, the United States has conscripted its armed forces for only 35 of its 230+ years — nearly all in the 20th century.</p>

11

<p>Zaph,
You can look at any of our wars (at least since the Civil War) and see initial exhurberance on the part of the population manifested in a lot of yourng men and women "signing up". You will also see that as the wars turn out not to be "quick" the exhuberance wanes and in EVERY case the country has resorted to a draft. I agree with your point on a 'logical level" but the reality is that a draft is the only way this nation has ever been able to assure sufficient troop strengths to execute the mission. The first gulf war would have been no different had we not rolled over Saddam and substantially left the region so quickly.<br>
A draft also does something quite interesting. When it exists, suddenly the general population really starts paying attention to policy like it never did before.
Good discussion folks.</p>

<p>"United States has conscripted its armed forces for only 35 of its 230+ years — nearly all in the 20th century"</p>

<p>im a little confused by that statement---we conscripted soldiers at least as far back as the Civil War. We didn't do it at times we weren't at war, but we have been using it as a means for filling the ranks as needed for the last 144 years (present war excluded)--Civil war, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. No draft utilized during Spanish American or First Gulf Wars (those didn't last long).</p>

12

<p>a former naval aviator just sent this to me:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.operationmom.org/ToOurParents.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.operationmom.org/ToOurParents.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

13

<p>Unfortunately while I agree with the premise to the extent that a dialog or national debate about such issues is very desirable, you cannot accomplish what you are suggesting, people are not going to vote to reinstate a selective service system. We can discuss the theoretical or talk about what is desirable but the debate has to come first as well as the recognition of the importance and value of service before anyone will vote to make that happen. In Boston they have a term they use when you ask for directions, just to be amusing; “you can’t get there from here”. </p>

<pre><code>We have conditioned our elected leadership to respond based polling data, not necessarily on what is in the national interest. Having been there I can’t say I blame them at times; compromise and a willingness to consider the views of your opposition seems to be in short supply and I’m not referring to just our politicians. We would obviously benefit from a discussion and substantive changes in legislation on a whole range of issues; Social security, health care, energy policy, the list goes on. When the term “sacrifice” enters the debate or even something as benign as “compromise or change”, is included in proposed legislation, look at the response. It’s ironic the same kids that we are talking about as potential candidates for a military draft have already been “drafted” in a manner of speaking, without any input from them or option to participate in a system that is going to force them to make great sacrifices. Not to fight, but to pay for an entitlement system and the national debt it has generated…. my term for it was intergenerational larceny. Well, before I get any further off topic I’ll shut up and get down off the soap box.

</code></pre>

<p>If you are interested there is a new book (2006?) by Bernard Rostker at the Rand Corporation think tank — titled “I Want You! The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force” a reference to it along with some quotes can be found at:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/09.14.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/09.14.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

14

<p>Good points, rjrzoom57. I agree that totay, politically, a draft is out of the question. Americans simply don't think their way of life is in danger--simply put, unless they perceive an immediate danger there will be no conscription. Hawks and Doves alike are content with the status quo as long as their sons and daughters aren't affected. In the meantime poor planning has resulted in the mess we find ourselves in today. Competency needs to be the primary trait we need to look for in our elected leaders, regardless of ideology, good looks, or catchy sound bites (ha! that'll be the day!)
Have a great day everyone!</p>

<p>On a more pleasant note I did receive an email from our cadet. She made it safely to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, England (luggage was lost for 3 days however). Her comments so far were that the British equipment was far more comfortable than it's US counterpart, it was very hard to understand what the Brits are saying when they yell (accent issues), their marching and drilling regimen was more complex than what she had experienced so far in the US, and it was strange being in an all female platoon. Later this week the RAF will be flying the lot of them to Canada for field exercises and then back to Engand for more training.</p>

<p>Have a great day everyone!</p>

15

<p>"It’s ironic the same kids that we are talking about as potential candidates for a military draft have already been “drafted” in a manner of speaking, without any input from them or option to participate in a system that is going to force them to make great sacrifices. Not to fight, but to pay for an entitlement system and the national debt it has generated…. my term for it was intergenerational larceny." rjrzoom57</p>

<p>Sad, but true. Thanks for your input and clear thinking.</p>

16

<p>shogun,
fascinating news about your brilliant cadet! :) All female platoon?</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
I agree with your point on a 'logical level" but the reality is that a draft is the only way this nation has ever been able to assure sufficient troop strengths to execute the mission.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sad state of affairs, if you ask me. Still, reality often trumps logic, for better or worse.</p>

<p>
[quote]
We have conditioned our elected leadership to respond based polling data, not necessarily on what is in the national interest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Preach it brother. The really pathetic thing is that all too often they ignore the polls, too (not the polls are always right, either).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Her comments so far were that the British equipment was far more comfortable than it's US counterpart

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the differences between their Navy and ours in any way translates to the Army, then I'll BET she was surprised!</p>

18

<p>Deployment Time Limit Fails in Senate</p>

<p>WASHINGTON, July 11 - Seven Republicans joined Democrats today in supporting a proposal to give American troops more time between their military deployments, but the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance on the first vote of a two-week Congressional debate on Iraq. </p>

<p>Senator Jim Webb , a Virginia Democrat, and Senator Chuck Hagel , a Nebraska Republican, sponsored an amendment, which could effectively limit the number of troops deemed ready for deployment. The senators, both combat veterans, said the men and women in the military should be give the same amount of time at home that they serve overseas. </p>

<h2>As the Senate considers a major military spending bill, lawmakers are offering a series of amendments intended to change the Bush administration's Iraq policy. After more than a day of debate, Mr. Webb's proposal effectively died when the Senate voted 56 to 41 to cut off debate, four votes short of the 60-vote threshold needed to move forward.</h2>

<p>Complete article is available at:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184181121-NAxokS73QbWj44cBcEs2/A%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1184181121-NAxokS73QbWj44cBcEs2/A&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

19

<p>I'll start listening to what Congress has to say on troop deployment rotations and readiness when they let the military do the Congeress' job.</p>

<p>If they want to pressure the President, they can exercise their Constitutional authority and simply stop funding the war. They won't do that, of course, because they tried that once before and the result was political suicide.</p>

<p>More posturing by the stuffed shirts on the Hill...</p>

20

<p>Out of curiousity, are there any statistics on the 5 and fly rates from the other service academies?</p>