Article

2008-03-19 Home Front: WoT

U.S. Army Isn't Broken After All, Military Experts Say

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2008-03-19 14:56|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 At least he is willing to admit when he is wrong. Thank you Scales for your integrity to adjust to the true facts. Too few people do that in this day and age.

Hoorah!

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-03-19 15:51|| 2008-03-19 15:51|| Front Page Top

#2 The high attrition rate amoung captains and majors after Viet Nam was a self inflicted wound by the Army. They were over strength in captains and majors at the time and decided to take all of the excesses out of two year groups instead of army wide. The net result was that some very good officers were RIFed in 1975 because they were in the 1968 year group and a lot of marginaly officers in the 1970 year group were retained. This disenchanted a lot of captains and majors about careers in the military and a number of them resigned. The net result was the army lost a lot of experienced combat veterans due to the RIF and disgust and there was a shortage of captains and majors for a number of years.

Posted by Imperial Sock Puppet 2008-03-19 16:37|| 2008-03-19 16:37|| Front Page Top

#3 I think they just missed the obvious:

Volunteers are more dependable than draftees.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-19 17:07|| 2008-03-19 17:07|| Front Page Top

#4 That RIF didn't help the attitudes of those retained either. I was Active Army 1976-1979. The force definitely NOT the same as the present volunteer forces (drugs anyone?). In addition I had a FDC section sergeant that was reduced in rank but retained. Prior enlisted that went through OCS. He was a decent leader but just marking time until his twenty was done. Morale, equipment, funding were in the pits before Reagan.

Posted by tipover 2008-03-19 17:16|| 2008-03-19 17:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Note: The above was why I did not re-enlist. VOLAR and Reagan made a world of difference in the force.

Posted by tipover 2008-03-19 17:19|| 2008-03-19 17:19|| Front Page Top

#6 I understand winning helps morale, too.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-03-19 17:40|| 2008-03-19 17:40|| Front Page Top

#7 tipover is correct. Drug, race riots [in Germany], lesser confrontations elsewhere, alcohol abuse, high levels of AWOL and Article 15s [and courts martial], most married enlisted qualified for food stamps trying to make in the largest government operated ghetto housing conglomerate known as base housing, very limited funding for real training, spare parts, and general maintenance of facilities. It's been far worse than anything the self appointed critics will understand or admit.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-03-19 17:46|| 2008-03-19 17:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Yeah, I was in that Army. Got to see the start of the changeover after Reagan was elected. Carter's Army had a thin green perma-press uniform that would wear through instantly if the knee touched pavement of any sort. The Reagan Army got a uniform (BDU) that actually looked like it was designed to fight in.

Posted by crosspatch 2008-03-19 17:57|| 2008-03-19 17:57|| Front Page Top

#9 At Mr.Wife's company, there is a steady loss of employees at year 1, year 5, year 10, and year 20 (or thereabouts). This is planned for, because it's been pretty constant over the decades. Likewise, based on the internal Army memo quoted at the bottom of the article, the retirement of captains and majors is unchanged from historical rates, not even accelerated by the move from peace to war footing. Those ambitious ones who are not, in their opinion, being promoted quickly enough, will leave. Those who do not, in themselves or in their families, have the endurance for an at least decade-long war with long stints on the battlefield, will leave. Those who have been injured too badly to remain, will leave. Those who, to their surprise and dismay, turn out not to be cut out for a soldier's life (or sailor's, or airman's, or marine's, yes, yes. I'm a civilian -- I can't keep track of interservice rivalries!), will leave.

Let's thank them all for their service, wish them well, and be grateful A) that recruitment numbers, though increasing, continue to be met, and B) that the leavening of civil society with an increasing number of military veterans who have willingly put all on the line to protect us can only benefit the country in ways too numerous to count... but the first of which will be demonstrated in November. ;-)

Thank you for your service, however brief or long it was. That which you have learnt has not been lost, only moved a bit.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2008-03-19 17:58|| 2008-03-19 17:58|| Front Page Top

#10 Well said, TW.

Posted by Jomosing Bluetooth8431 2008-03-19 18:14|| 2008-03-19 18:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Carter's Army had a thin green perma-press uniform that would wear through instantly if the knee touched pavement of any sort.

Oh gawd, I remember that travesty. ugh.

Posted by lotp 2008-03-19 19:23|| 2008-03-19 19:23|| Front Page Top

#12 1) Retention bonuses are way up. If you want something worthwhile, you have to pay for it; I don't see this as a problem.

2) Historically, when the economy sinks, military jobs become more attractive - no, not the Kerry line about soldiers only join because they can't do anything else, but it is true that when the competition for the soldier's services goes up he is more likely to leave and when it goes down he is more likely to stay.

3) I think our servicemen understand the importance of what they are doing, and that a great many Americans appreciate it, which makes the hardships more endurable.

4) I know a lot of guys enlist because they actually 'like' to fight - not murder, or even kill, but psychologically they enjoy the competition, teamwork, etc. And they like the neat 'toys' and getting to blow stuff up. Glad they're on our side.

From my perspective, as a non-military guy. Sure hope the next administration doesn't re-Clintonize things and screw us all.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-03-19 19:35|| 2008-03-19 19:35|| Front Page Top

#13 Glemore, there's more of that than you might think.

I was a crappy peacetime soldier. A troublemaker. A "boat rocker". Some of us are made for trouble and if we cannot find it, we make it

War changes everything.

A wartime/professional army where you cut through the BS is where we thrive or else completely fall apart. For those that survive it, the hard part is when you get too old to "march toward the sound of the guns". Still have the "wanna do", short on the "can do".

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-19 21:32|| 2008-03-19 21:32|| Front Page Top

#14 And the changeover under Reagan was a Godsend.

We actually got serious about training like we wanted to fight. Airland Battle was a breath of fresh air from the "hold in place and die" of Carter's Army. Our job was not to serve as a tripwire for nukes anymore, but to see how many of them we could make die - and stay alive. Fight to win! Seek the enemy out, find his weak spots, exploit those gaps, kill them in large numbers, then dodge back and do it again. Stealth, Mobility, Lethality. Cavalry Scout!

Thats when I first felt like a soldier: when we went out and got AGGRESSIVE - and got the tools to do it with - dirt bikes, Bradley CFVs, modern laser homing ATGM, laser designators, hunter-killer teams on the ground (Scouts + CFV) and in the air (OH58D + Cobra/Apache). We were finally focused on the right thing - in the words of Patton, "making the other poor dumb bastard die for HIS country".

I HATE Jimmy Carter for what he did to the military and the nation, the country he continues to loathe. When they bury him I hope someone sneaks the casket at the last minute and turns that SOB face down. If there was any justice, they'd just plant him head down like a lawn dart.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-03-19 21:43|| 2008-03-19 21:43|| Front Page Top

#15 I understand winning helps morale, too.

Well, yes. But that depends on having the training, leadership, and equipment to fight.

Posted by Pappy 2008-03-19 21:48|| 2008-03-19 21:48|| Front Page Top

#16 This is asking the same question as was asked when Dubya first officially announced the WOT after 9-11 > CAN THE USA WID ITS VOLUNTEER ARMY FIGHT AND WIN A GLOBAL WAR AGZ [DECENTRALIZED/
COVERT]TERROR, AND DO SO DESPITE ANY RISK OF "GREAT POWERS" REGIONAL-GLOBAL MIL CONFRONTATION AND INTERVENTION AGZ THE US = US AGENDA, INCLUDING ALLIED!?

Despite meritorious advantages, a VOLAR still contains inherent weaknesses over a NATIONAL DRAFT army, espec when and iff SMALL LOCAL WARS/CONFLICTS BECOME BIG GLOBAL ONES, e.g. RUSSO-CHINA ANTI-US "WAR NOT ONLY POSSIBLE BUT DESIRED" circa 2018, now as early as 2012.

*POTUS HILLARY, OBAMA, andor MCCAIN > their post-Dubya strategies is broadly based on OSAMA = RADICAL ISLAM STAYING IN THE ME AND NOT BEING ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY EXTEND AND SPREAD THEIR ORGZ + REGIONAL-GLOBAL VIOLENT JIHAD OVER TO THE AMERICAS OR EUROPE, i.e. NOT OUTSIDE THE ME = MUSLIM-DOMIN WORLD REGIONS. The Dems = Hillary-Barack are clearly anticipating that Dubya will not cease US entrenchment, etc. efforts in 2008, so they risk nothing by redux US milfor levels or bringing troops home starting in 2009.

*MARA LIASSON > argued that neither a DEM POTUS BARACK NOR POTUS HILLARY IS GOING TO WILFULLY, UNILATER DOWNSIZE US TROOPS IN 2009 TO SUCH PRECIPITIOUS LEVELS AS TO ENDANGER THE IGA + DEMOCRATIC IRAQ where Islamists will fill the voids + US/US-Allies ends up having to militarily go back in [Mort/Fred]. LEST WE FERGIT, ISRAEL > BELIEVES IRAN [by extens Radical Islamist Terror] WILL HAVE WORKING NUKE BOMB(S) IN ONE YEAR [EOY 2008 or after].

Presuming that a POTUS OBama or POTUS Hillary does indeed go thru wid post-elex US milfor redux, wid parallel downsized but still-effective US entrenchment efforts, the question for Osama = Radical Islam after Jan 2009 then becomes whether they can still mil defeat large or major US or US-Iraqi forces in tactical battle??? IFF OSAMA AND RADICLA ISLAM CANNOT WIN ANY BATTLEFIELD VICTORY DESPITE ANY REDUCED US PRESENCE, THEN IMO TO CONTINUE WID GLOBAL JIHAD INFERS PUTTING THE JIHADIST-ISLAMIST AGENDA INTO THE DE FACTO CONTROL OF ANTI-US BUT ALSO ANTI-/NON-ISLAMIST WORLD POWERS. To continue wid jihad, Radical Islam will have to give up control of thier men and materiel, etc.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-19 22:18|| 2008-03-19 22:18|| Front Page Top

#17 For Radical Islam to place their Jihadist-Islamist agenda in the hands of so-called "Infidels" will be interpreted by both many Islamists and non-Islamists,Muslims and non-Muslims, etc. that ISLAMISM = ISLAM? HAD LOST OR IS DE FACTO DEFEATED. BY HIS REPORTED NEW THREAT AGZ THE POPE = VATICAN TODAY, IMO OSAMA etc. REALIZES THIS POINT.

Iff Radical Islam has any so-called "Amer Hiroshima" plans, SAID PLANS ARE PROB BEING DUSTED OFF RIGHT NOW. A VERY DANGEROUS TIME LIES JUST AHEAD OF US, SO KEEP YOUR FINGERS CROSSED AND YOUR GUNS-AMMO OILED AND WELL-STOCKED.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-03-19 22:32|| 2008-03-19 22:32|| Front Page Top

23:48 www
23:24 Abdominal Snowman
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:23 3dc
23:22 3dc
23:14 3dc
23:06 Halliburton - Hyperbolic Idiot Detection Service
23:04 Halliburton - Hyperbolic Idiot Detection Service
23:01 Elmereth Dingle3003
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:34 Redneck Jim
22:32 JosephMendiola
22:21 Redneck Jim
22:19 RD
22:18 RD
22:18 JosephMendiola
22:09 Frank G
22:02 3dc
21:58 Frank G
21:49 ed
21:48 Pappy
21:43 OldSpook
21:40 Frank G
21:37 ed