Army. Marine Corps to Grow

[SWJED]

10 January AFPS - Gates Calls for 92,000 More Soldiers, Marines (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2651) by Jim Garamone. Reposted in full per DoD guidelines.


The active-duty Army and Marine Corps will grow by 92,000 personnel over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a White House news conference today.

“The President announced last night that he would strengthen our military for the long war against terrorism by authorizing an increase in the overall strength of the Army and Marine Corps,” Gates said. “I am recommending to him a total increase in the two services of 92,000 soldiers and Marines over the next five years.”

The breakout is 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

The increase will make permanent the 30,000 temporary increase in Army end-strength and 5,000 increase in the Marine Corps. Then the services will increase in annual increments of 7,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps.

The Army has a current end-strength of 512,400, with the Marines at 180,000. Under Gates' proposal, the Army’s end-strength will grow to 547,000 and the Marines to 202,000.

“We should recognize that while it may take some time for these new troops to become available for deployment, it is important that our men and women in uniform know that additional manpower and resources are on the way,” Gates said.

The increase will give soldiers and Marines more “dwell time” at home, officials said. Currently, units are on close to a one-to-one deployment to dwell time schedule. The increase in end-strength will reduce the stress on deployable active duty personnel.

Army and Marine officials said the services cannot grow forces overnight. Currently, the active duty Army recruits 80,000 young Americans each year with the Marines bringing in 39,000.

Recruiting officials said that right now, only three of 10 young men and women in the 19-to-24-year-old age group meet the standards to enlist in the military.

Those young men and women have a lot of demands for their services, an Army official said, and incentives for enlisting and for service may need to be “plussed-up” to encourage these people to enlist. The services also may need to put more recruiters on the street.

Training the individuals in the proper military occupational specialties is also a potential choke-point. Both the Army and Marine Corps training establishments have some growth potential, and can probably expand to handle the influx, officials in both services said.

[Uboat509]

Again, I ask where they are going to find all these extra bodies? I am pretty sure that recruiters are not turning away 13,000 qualified applicants a year. I would love to see an increase in the size of the Army but what kind of incentives are they going to have to offer to get it?

SFC W

[pcmfr]

I'm sure recruiting for the USMC and USA is a very tough job. But from these numbers, they seem to be doing it well enough to support a gradual expansion:

DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for December

http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=10390

[jonSlack]

With officer retention rates where they are in the Army, where all the CPTs, MAJs, and LTCs going to come from to man these new units?

[Rifleman]

I wonder how is the Army going to organize the extra personel? I'd hate to see additional division HQs stood up unless it was absoulutly necessary, even though it would be interesting from a historical perspective.

I'd much rather they added a third manuever battalion to the existing brigades before standing up anymore HQs.

[Rob Thornton]

They will get re-assigned from other things that were a priority, but are now bumped. I know what you are thnking, becuase I am too, but through the HRC macro-scope - Peter will pay Paul. Symptons first, problems later.

[Stu-6]

It was not so long ago that we had a volunteer force of that size I suspect we could so it again if we really tried, thought it would not come cheap. For my money what we should do instead is look at the mix of forces we have, create more units of infantry, MPs, Civil Affairs, etc. by decreasing the numbers of ADA, administrative troops, fighter aircraft, etc. Move those units and equipment better suited for WWIII to the reserves and those who can fight guerrillas to the activity duty side. Then look at increasing the size of the reserves. Obviously this would solve all of our problems with frequent rotations to places like Iraq but it could be done quicker and would give us more bang for our buck.

[Shek]

With officer retention rates where they are in the Army, where all the CPTs, MAJs, and LTCs going to come from to man these new units?

Part of what's driving attitrion is that in order to "correct" the shortage in senior CPTs, MAJs, etc., we are over-assessing LTs so as they drop out, we hopefully are closing to where we want to be. In doing so, LTs are getting shorter PL gigs, and so the job that they probably joined for is a job that they aren't spending much time in. This killed my year group and those around it, and it's certainly has to be having an effect right now.

I'm not trying to downplay the effects of back to back deployments, but every little piece counts. It doesn't fix the problem you identify above in the short-term, but having more LT jobs will hopefully help retain more in the long-term.

There are other programs out there as well that are addressing the issue in the long-term, with the current surge of grad school slots and the ADSO for branch/post/grad school program that was introduced last year and has grown this year.

[Shek]

I wonder how is the Army going to organize the extra personel? I'd hate to see additional division HQs stood up unless it was absoulutly necessary, even though it would be interesting from a historical perspective.

I'd much rather they added a third manuever battalion to the existing brigades before standing up anymore HQs.

I fully concur.

[Tom Odom]

I hope we use these extra lieutenants as apprentice-level small unit leaders and start growing greater experience in small units.

More staffs and bigger staffs are NOT the answer. Fundamental focus on small unit war fighting is; old guys like me can build power point slides and write white papers in TDA slots. Active duty officers from lieutenant through pre-MEL 4 majors need to stay in the units. The same needs to happen in NCOs. And we need to begin formally filtering the leaders and the staffers into sub-categories.

Yep Slapout, this definitely a pet rock of mine...

Best

Tom

[Rifleman]

I hope we use these extra lieutenants as apprentice-level small unit leaders and start growing greater experience in small units.

That fits in well with the article you posted (on the rifle squad thread I started) about the four squad two section platoon, commanded by a captain with a lieutenant commanding a section of two squads (interesting article by the way, thanks).

Regarding growing greater experience in small units. Do you see any place for warrant officers at the rifle company level in this? Some sort of "assistant platoon leader for life" position, similar to the SF ODA XO?

[slapout9]

Tom, this has always been one of mine and not just the Army but LE as well the bottom is always full of new inexperienced people and it hurts! LE has had success with Master Patrolmen type programs were your pay grade is separated form your rank, so you have 10,15,20 year veterans on the street but are being paid what they normally would have made if they rose through the ranks.

I also like the three fire team squad. This was a big pet rock with me in the early 70's, the USMC had 3 teams why couldn't we. It adds so much flexibility. Anyway I am done now.

[Tom Odom]

Regarding growing greater experience in small units. Do you see any place for warrant officers at the rifle company level in this? Some sort of "assistant platoon leader for life" position, similar to the SF ODA XO?

Short answer: Absolutely but along the lines of the Brits where the Senior NCOs are Warrants; my take on keeping senior NCOs who wish to stay on the line is to make E8 a transition rank that keeps the title of 1st Sergeant, SGM, CSM but shifts pay scales to warrant so that E8 who does not want to be a SGM or a CSM can keep his rank and get paid for his ever increasing experience. A regular warrant program like the ODAs is also a great idea.

Best

Tom

[jcustis]

Just had a brief from the MC Recruiting Cmd reps on the proposed increases. We are going way up, and everybody is going to feel it. The theme to the brief was, "Every Marine, from Gen Conway on down, is a recruiter. All that the guys actually working the streets need is a name and a phone number."

[selil]

Interesting thing happened to me last week. I'm teaching a class for DHS on protecting computing assets this semester and the lead is actually a Captain in the Navy. He looked at me and said "Won't be long now until you're back in the military". Ummm. Ok.. Two of my "deployment widows" husbands have been sent back to Iraq or Germany. Another student got recalled lucky for him before the semester began. Recruiters on the campus have been notably absent, but what materials I've seen have all been vandalized. I just hired a former Marine as a lab manager and doubled the number of veterans in my office wing. It'll be interesting to see if the recruiting efforts on campus suddenly increase. I imagine though recruiters are more interested in High Schoolers than college students.

[Jedburgh]

Again, I ask where they are going to find all these extra bodies? I am pretty sure that recruiters are not turning away 13,000 qualified applicants a year. I would love to see an increase in the size of the Army but what kind of incentives are they going to have to offer to get it?
Army Times, 7 Apr 08: 1 in 8 Army Recruits Needs Conduct Waiver (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/gns_waivers_040708/)

.....The percentage of active and reserve Army recruits granted “conduct” waivers for misdemeanor or felony charges increased to 11 percent last fiscal year from 4.6 percent in fiscal 2004, according to Army Recruiting Command statistics. So far this fiscal year, which began last October, 13 percent of recruits have entered the Army with conduct waivers.

Most waivers involve misdemeanors. The Army has granted 4,676 conduct waivers among the 36,047 recruited from October through late February.....

[Tom Odom]

And I thought it was only a movie when I saw the first one in 1986. Never thought of it as a model for the Army....

McFly, report to the recruiter station...

Maybe if the Doc goes back in time and gets "younger" he could jump forward and still be young enuff...

[ODB]

I grew up in the Army when there was no such thing as bonuses. I am curious to see the Army's ability to retain many of the soldiers who over the past few years have had massive amounts of money thrown at them. Case in point, came across a guy the other day that did the 18X program, got $30,000 to enlist for 4 years and just did a 4 year reelistment for $33,000. That kind of money is not going to last and when many of these guys come up to reenlist and there is no $30,000-$40,000 bonus they are going to go to the private sector where they can make 2-3 times the money they are now for doing the same thing. I think it will be very difficult to maintain our current numbers let alone try to grow. I lived through one Clinton administration and saw what it did to our military afraid of the next Presidential administration. Personally for myself and a lot of the men I work with it's not about the money, we love what we do, but to many the money means a lot.

A few years ago when I was PSG with a unit that was being transitioned from an Infantry Bn to this new conglameration of CAV scouts and support personal (never have understood the reasoning behind this). One Friday afternoon I got a new soldier fresh from basic training. This soldier didn't have to pass a PT test before graduating only had to show improvement. The first questioned I asked him was why he joined the Army, his response "For the college money". I then asked him "How does it make you feel to know you will earn every dime in 6 months when you deploy to Iraq?". He had no response, none, just looked at me dumbfounded. Monday morning his SL comes to me and tells me that this new guy just told him he is a "conscientious objector". My point of this story is that yes we may be filling the requirement for bodies but does that mean we are filling the true manpower requirements. Is quantity better than quality in today's or for that matter any day's Army?

[Ken White]

FWIW, we've been there before -- not with the big bonuses; those will have the effect you predict, I think -- but with respect to the quality of intake. From the 40s through the late 70s, the Army would take anyone who walked through the door with few questions. The average Recruit was not among the best and the brightest and a good number were effectively told by a Judge to enlist or go to Jail. The pipeline did its thing and you got Joe Tentpeg assigned.

You could Chapter him out if he was a total loss but it was not at all easy and it almost invariably would happen only after several transfers to different units as a Rehab transfer. So, Eward Heebley, PSG Extraordinaire had to mold these guys into a team -- generally with no SSGs for SLs -- and try to keep 'em out of jail. Mostly, Eward and his buddies did a pretty good job. It wasn't easy but it got done. If one was in an airborne unit, it got a little easier due to the weeding-out process but it wasn't an order of magnitude better.

Some people were better at shaping the kids up than others but most did an effective job. Some of the kids, apparent losers initially, straightened up and became good, even great, troops. Most just got by. A few were perpetual problems. Things stayed that way all through both Korea and Viet Nam (both of which were great for getting the kids who were wayward to focus a bit).

The reenlistment rates then hovered in the 20% range. That meant, essentially about a 40% turnover in most units every year. Pretty hard to do 'cohesive' with that going on. It took, then, about 2 1/2 to 3 years to produce a decent Infantryman (partly because the Infantry then got the low scorers that no one else wanted and partly because we didn't train as well as we do today) so about the time you had a good competent SP4, he'd ETS.

Today with combat arms rate of reenlistment at record levels, we're also looking at a burgeoning SSG problem in a few years. I doubt we'll handle that well, the track record is not good. HRC generally adapts about five years after the fact.

SF also had it's problems, particularly when the floodgates got opened with the major expansion in 61-62; those of us there at the time were flat horrified at some of what came out of the woodwork; still they came, most stayed and most worked out to one degree or another.

Until we get smart and make it a challenge and provide a reason for a sharp, well educated kid to give it a shot, it's likely to get worse before it gets better...

No intent to say it's no sweat, it is a sweat and it darn sure shouldn't be that way; doesn't have to be that way -- did I mention that the personnel policies of the US Army are poor -- but it has been less than great before and the institution survived. Does mean more work, no question about that... :(

[ODB]

Today with combat arms rate of reenlistment at record levels, we're also looking at a burgeoning SSG problem in a few years. I doubt we'll handle that well, the track record is not good. HRC generally adapts about five years after the fact.

This just brought back to me one of my biggest issues that is happening now-a-days. Automatic promotion to E-5/SGT and E-6/SSG. I have a huge issue with this current policy. Now I'm no expert in all the specifics of this but the fact that soldiers can get automatically promoted to these grades/ranks causes me to break out in hives......well not quite that bad. I understand many problems and lack of attendance to NCOES schools due to deployments, but in IMHO this is not the answer. Many of these NCO's will be SSGs for life, take up positions they shouldn't have, and the politicing and backstabbing will get worse. (To note I am not a bitter NCO who has been passed over, very happy with where I am in my career.) Just wish I knew what the thought process is behind some of these types of policies.


Until we get smart and make it a challenge and provide a reason for a sharp, well educated kid to give it a shot, it's likely to get worse before it gets better...

I have wondered many times if this is due more to society than anything else? In our society in general when was the last time serving in the military was an honorable profession in the publics opinion? I feel if many of our country's "it" people (for lack of a better description) had all been veterans how hard would recruitment be? Would like to what others thoughts are on how the general population sees the military today and how it has changed over the years. I think this is a major factor in helping get the best and brightest into or services.

[tequila]

In our society in general when was the last time serving in the military was an honorable profession in the publics opinion?

I think our society views the military as an honorable profession. However, it is not viewed by the middle and upper classes as an economically sensible career choice. Stigma is too strong a word for it, insofar as most middle- and upper-class civilians venerate the military (from afar). But a polite disconnection is certainly evident. Iraq has certainly accentuated this trend.

[ODB]

Perhaps honorable is the wrong word.....was thinking along lines of the perception many have that those in the military could do nothing else with their lives and that is why they are there. Wish I was a better wordsmith...sorry but trying.:) Thank you for commenting that my question was coming across that way.

[Ken White]

"I think our society views the military as an honorable profession."to society as a whole but I do believe it applies to the the majority of people. The 'eceonomically' viable is part of it but a generic aversion to anything military is also present in many.
"Just wish I knew what the thought process is behind some of these types of policies." Basically it's the same old story; 'today is what I'll get judged on, someone else can worry about tomorrow.' Short sighted and I agree with you on that. it ain't smart...
"I have wondered many times if this is due more to society than anything else? "As Tequila said, the economy is a big factor. A dozen or more other factors also impinge to one degree or another. The Army Chief of staff from 1979-83 tried to change the Army's image but TraDoc and the then MilPerCen fought it to a standstill. We're still paying for that intransigence.

On the societal aspect, it is perhaps noteworthy that prior to 9/11, most of a progressive bent were resoundingly anti-military and there was much clamor for reducing the defense budget even lower than it than was. After that date, it became uncool to most to denigrate the Armed Forces.

[tequila]

On the societal aspect, it is perhaps noteworthy that prior to 9/11, most of a progressive bent were resoundingly anti-military and there was much clamor for reducing the defense budget even lower than it than was. After that date, it became uncool to most to denigrate the Armed Forces.

I'd predate that to 1992, post-Gulf War. The unabashed triumph of Desert Storm rehabilitated the military in the eyes of all across the political spectrum - there is where you will see political faith in the military as an institution rise to its greatest heights (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27946/Americans-Confidence-Congress-AllTime-Low.aspx). The military still ranks as the most trusted American institution in public life.

I'll remind you that slashing military spending was widely popular on all fronts in the wake of the Cold War - see SecDef Dick Cheney's record, pre-Desert Storm.

[ODB]

I'd predate that to 1992, post-Gulf War. The unabashed triumph of Desert Storm rehabilitated the military in the eyes of all across the political spectrum - there is where you will see political faith in the military as an institution rise to its greatest heights (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27946/Americans-Confidence-Congress-AllTime-Low.aspx). The military still ranks as the most trusted American institution in public life.

I'll remind you that slashing military spending was widely popular on all fronts in the wake of the Cold War - see SecDef Dick Cheney's record, pre-Desert Storm.

It seems based off the poll numbers they directly corelate to the news media's coverage of the military. 02-03 was probably some of the most pro military news coverage in decades. We all know this is most peoples only source of information. Would be interesting to see how much affect media coverage has on the populations view of the military.

[Eden]

I know there is a lot of angst among active-duty posters about the declining quality of recruits, but keep some perspective. The quality of recruits would have to drop a lot to get as bad as it was in the late 70's and early 80's...and we managed. There may have to be adjustments to get the most out of a lower quality pool, but it can be done. ODB mentioned guys stuck at E-6...I remember an Army that still had 'career corporals' and they were valuable members of the team, if you knew how to handle and motivate them. For further research see "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon".

Anyway, I would like to see the extra strength - or at least some of it - siphoned off to the institutional Army. I know that is not very sexy, but I believe a rot has been eroding our training base and our intellectual base for more than a decade. My four years in TRADOC (99-03) were a real eye-opener, and unless things have changed combat units will continue to get half-trained recruits for some time. Instructor-to-student ratios declined, drill sergeant quality declined, courses had to be cancelled, etc. Training could not be properly updated or resourced because we lacked training developers; doctrine fell behind because we didn't have enough writers. As an example, when I was working on the development and integration of the Stryker, I was supposed to have 20 officers working for me. I had 3. Yes, we hired contractors to do some of these things, but they are not the panacea some claim. And they didn't mow grass, sit CQ, do funeral details, or raise the flag every morning. Thus, the remaining green-suiters were even more stretched.

We are eating our own children, and have been for years.

[ODB]

I remember an Army that still had 'career corporals' and they were valuable members of the team, if you knew how to handle and motivate them.

Would a solution to this be going back to the Spec 5, Spec 6....etc ranks? I have come across many soldiers through the years that would have loved to stay on a machine gun team, team leader etc...their entire career. This would be a way for these soldiers to continue to get pay increases and to do what they love. Imagine the proficiency of these troops. This would be an administrative nightmare, unfortunately. I can already see some these guys 10 years into their careers wanting to do something else. Ultimately as sad as it sounds many soldiers do not want the added responsibilities of leading troops.


Anyway, I would like to see the extra strength - or at least some of it - siphoned off to the institutional Army. I know that is not very sexy, but I believe a rot has been eroding our training base and our intellectual base for more than a decade. My four years in TRADOC (99-03) were a real eye-opener, and unless things have changed combat units will continue to get half-trained recruits for some time. Instructor-to-student ratios declined, drill sergeant quality declined, courses had to be cancelled, etc. Training could not be properly updated or resourced because we lacked training developers; doctrine fell behind because we didn't have enough writers. As an example, when I was working on the development and integration of the Stryker, I was supposed to have 20 officers working for me. I had 3. Yes, we hired contractors to do some of these things, but they are not the panacea some claim. And they didn't mow grass, sit CQ, do funeral details, or raise the flag every morning. Thus, the remaining green-suiters were even more stretched.

I have mixed thoughts and emotions on this subject. I myself have managed to stay out of TRADOC assignments and have stayed in operational units my career thus far (probably just jinxed myself). Every NCOES school I have attended the school house has taught me the job I was already doing, not preparing me for the future, and in many cases was years behind what was actually being used in units. This has been a problem that has plaqued the institutions for decades. Unfortunately to get POI/MOIs changed takes so long that by the time they are approved they are outdated. Talking with peers who have had to do time in TRADOC they couldn't wait to get out. Most of this is due to their hands being tied by the school house. Unfortunately the types of individuals we need in TRADOC stay away from TRADOC due to the bureaucracy. Additionally for many this is a career enhancer but many I work with want to stay operational and view individuals who volunteer for these assignments as those who are checking the block. A soldier who does go to these TRADOC assignments today come back three years behind on how things are being done operationally, instead of coming back with the latest and greatest. I have tried to figure the solution to this for years and don't know what the answer is and if there is a solution.

Honestly I find it disheartening that many of you have had these same issues many decades ago. IMHO I think technology has made this worse in many cases as our leaders are tied to email. The proverbial ass chewing for not answering an email because they were where they should have been observing training. The worse is whe your boss works next to you and as he's leaving for the day asks if you have checked your email because he forwarded everything to you instead of turning to you and telling you what was going. This in many instances has developed a new breed of leaders in the Army.

[Ken White]

I'd predate that to 1992, post-Gulf War. The unabashed triumph of Desert Storm rehabilitated the military in the eyes of all across the political spectrum - there is where you will see political faith in the military as an institution rise to its greatest heights (http://www.gallup.com/poll/27946/Americans-Confidence-Congress-AllTime-Low.aspx). The military still ranks as the most trusted American institution in public life.

I'll remind you that slashing military spending was widely popular on all fronts in the wake of the Cold War - see SecDef Dick Cheney's record, pre-Desert Storm.extent of who wanted what in regard to reduction of spending. Not to mention broader support -- and entry...

Cheney was one of the poorer SecDefs ever IMO, so you get no points for citing him. The man's a menace and he got to be VP due to the big donors insistence in return for supporting Bush 43, much as Al Gore was the price for the democratic donors support of Clinton.

You know what you read, I know what I experienced while working for DoD during the 90s and thus paying pretty close attention to the political and budget vibes. I'll stick with my post 9/11 for the progressives change of heart and 'support the troops' mantra.

The Armed Forces have always ranked higher in the trust category on polls than most institutions, no big change in that. Nor much solace, the public is fickle...