Louisville, Ky.:

[SWCAdmin]

There was much debate about manpower and the numbers needed for the Iraq war. We keep hearing we have enough troops on the ground, but tours are extended and units keep going back. How much time in country impacts the ability of a soldier to be effective? In short, how much time should a man/woman serve before they are not expected to keep on serving in a combat zone?

[Steve Blair]

Age-old debate here...and one that has no satisfactory answer. In short..."it varies."

Going back to the Vietnam example, the claim was that it took about four months for the average troop to become useful in-country. They were effective for 4-5 months, and then the wind-down to the end of their tours started taking a toll on effectiveness. It's interesting to note that the 15-month tour was considered by some in the system to be better suited for Vietnam, but it was never adapted for political and other reasons. There are examples of men who broke down after days in country...and other examples of men who kept extending their tours until they'd been in-country for two or more years.

The World War II model was you served until you broke down or were killed/wounded. Korea introduced a point system that allowed people to rotate out at a certain point.

[selil]

During Vietnam 12 month tours were fairly common. During the 80's and 90's infantry unites deployed in the range of 6 to 9 months on a variety of missions. The operational tempo of 15 month deployments and short stays at home will wear down the military machine. The expenditures in health care, equipment replenishment and the associated maintenance will be extraordinary.

One explanation of the expectation of 15 month tours is that this is a volunteer force and it is the job. Another is that we are looking at a critical point and that the operational tempo will slow down. This is in direct contrast to leadership superlatives of a long war to be fought on many fronts.

In the end accidents, errors, and illness will erode any military force in the field without significant replenishment for long periods. The time in reserve has always been the method of allowing for training and support. This particular war is of interest to the concept of operational tempo simply because the time in the war zone is so long. The war in Iraq is already longer than US involvement in WW2. There have been few times in the history of the United States that we've fought a war this long and at no time was it ever done with an all volunteer force.

In the end the length of service commitment will be a political decision that will likely say it depends.