U.S. Is Extending Tours of Army in Battle Zones
12 April NY Times - U.S. Is Extending Tours of Army in Battle Zones by David Cloud.
The military announced Wednesday that most active duty Army units now in Iraq and Afghanistan and those sent in the future would serve 15-month tours, three months longer than the standard one-year tour.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, who announced the change at a news conference at the Pentagon, said that the only other way to maintain force levels would have been to allow many soldiers less than a year at home between combat tours.
Mr. Gates said the problem was evident even before President Bush ordered an increase in troops for Iraq this year. Officials said the change became inevitable as the numbers of extra troops that were needed — and, most likely, the time the extra forces would have to stay — increased...
The media is in a predictable flutter over this, but am I off base in thinking that the Army can handle it? Or at least, they should be able to handle it. Armies have been deployed for far longer with no idea when they are coming back. Are we wrong to expect more of our troops, but still less than we did of them during World War II?
I think it would be fair to ask more of our Army if we were to start asking more of all U.S. Citizens. To compare this to the situation in World War Two is far off base. When you look at the war-time economy, the sacrifices we asked the public to make and the entire shift of a peacetime to a war time economy, you are dealing with apples and oranges. When the leading two news stories involve Anna Nichole Smith (she's still dead) and Three Duke Lacrosse players, that should give you a sense of where our nation's priorities lay.
Personally, I think about 100,000 spirits were crushed yesterday along with an unknown number of families already asked to sacrifice so much. Will the Army continue to perform like it always has...yes. Will our soldiers take the fight to the enemy as hard as they possibly can...yes. Does it suck to be an active duty soldier or family member...yes. I believe that as we look back on this decision a few years from now, that this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Remember, we are a military at war, not a nation at war. Maybe I should get out join the reserves...looks like shorter tours and more time at home!Or better yet, switch over to the Marines. I'd rather do multiple 7 month tours than big 15 month swaths of time in Iraq. Then again, I get seasick pretty easy so I guess I'll just keep on my ACUs and continue to suck it up like the rest of my brothers and sisters. Just my $.02.
"we are a military at war, not a nation at war."
I agree completely. Our greatest weakness has been the refusal of the nation's leaders to ask the citizenry to match, or even partly match, the sacrifices made by the military. Why they won't has mystified me. I think we would come through.
They seem not to trust the American people to do the right thing. I read once Hitler refused to fully mobilize the German economy until late in the war because he didn't think the people would accept the sacrifice mobilization entailed; and then it was too late. We seem to be on the same road.
No matter how this all turns out, thank you for trying.
Your Two Cents...
Well said Sully, very well said...Originally Posted by sullygoarmy
I strongly agree. Especially when you look at the fact that, other than recent inductees into uniform, very few serving don't have at least one tour in theater. And there is a large chunk of the active force that already has multiple tours under their belt - some types of units and MOSs have been hit harder than others. This is hitting them and their families hard - and, as you stated, this will finally make up the minds of quite a few to leave (if they can).
Going back to your WWII reference, it is not only "the nation is not at war" that affects this issue. Something of very serious import, that we refer to often but don't quite acknowledge, is that a far greater number of soldiers (proportionately) in the Army today are married and have families than there were during the '40s. This is especially true when you look at the junior ranks - both enlisted and officer. Repeated long deployments take a heavier toll mentally on your average family-man, as opposed to single guys (Yes, this is a General Statement, with plenty of exceptions in both directions).
Sure, the wonderful communications revolution certainly helps with much more regular phone contact, 'net comms, etc. (not that long ago I recall getting one "morale call" per month on a scratchy line where both of us had to shout and we usually ended up getting cut off before the time limit was reached) However, it ain't helping that much, because instances of both spousal abuse and divorce are skyrocketing. The numbers of suicides and attempts in-theater are kept quiet. Chaplains are busy helping, but many leaders are too overwhelmed with either planning, execution or recovery to notice the warning signs. There are those who are thriving on it, but in general its a tough time all around - and its getting tougher.
Jed, great comments reference the make up of our military today versus WWII. No doubt that the composition of our military is much different today in terms of family structure, age, background, etc.
There was a great article last year in the NYTimes talking about how even though its great that we have this near instant communications between soldiers and families, it is actually adding more stress to the soldiers on the ground. The story talked about a LTC (battalion commander I think) and how he would get e-mails about sick kids, problems with the bank/car, etc. So now not only are you worried about you, your troops, your mission, safety, etc, you've also got all the instant worries, concerns and issues your family is dealing with back home. As much as I am grateful that our soldiers can send e-mails, do internet web cams back home and get more phone calls back home than probably any other time in history, it adds an interesting new dimenson of stress probably unseen throughout warfare: Instant Stress (IS) from the homefront! Instead of Instant Messaging that people do in the states, we now have IS going on. I'm sure yesterday, with the extension announcement, caused a wave of IS messages between spouses, children and servicemembers.
Again, I know our soldiers will continue to perform as they always have, god-bless'em for that. Talking with a buddy of mine at FOB Speicher, however, he told me how both he (BN XO) and his unit found out about the extension. Anyone want to guess? The same way I did back here in the states...from the news channel. They had no idea this coming, no rumors, nothing. Bam. There's a shot across the morale bow.
Again, thanks for the feedback. I always take something away from these discussions.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
One more comment on this same issue. When we look at the amount of continuous combat our soldiers are experiencing today, they will greatly outpace the amount of time our grandfathers in WWII went through. For example, take the 82nd Airborne. They jumped into Market Garden in mid-september 1944 and were pulled out of the line in mid December. Worst case, three months of sustained combat. Granted, the level of combat may be different (artillery barrages vs IEDs) but the mental, physical and emotional stress is the same. We have soldiers (not the fobbits) literally in contact every day for up to a year. Add a few more months on to that. Reports now already say returning units are suffering up to 30% of the soldiers experiencing diagnosible levels of PSTD in accordance with the DSMIII. 30% of our soldiers with PTSD. Granted there are different levels of PTSD, but just the fact that 1/3 of soldiers may experience some symptoms of PTDS is astounding. Now, add repeated rotations, and now extended tours, the chance for increased psychological injuries is even greater.
SLA Marshall, Swank/Marchand and Beebe/Appel's research in WWII showed that soldiers who experienced anywhere from 30-88 days of sustained combat were almost guarenteed to become psychological casualties. Marshall's argument (though debated by some) that anyone,other than the 2% of soldiers who could be classified as psychopath, after 90 days of continous combat would become psychological casualties...period.
I know you can manipulate numbers to have them show anything you want, and the definitions of sustained combat, psychological casualties, etc are debateable until blue in the face. Bottom line, our soldiers, our Army is paying both a seen and unseen price for continous combat, long exposure to combat, and extended deployments. We need to look deep at what the short term, and more importanly, long-term results of these current decision means for the future of our army.
Back to my cup of coffee....
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
Government at War?
Not only are we not a nation at war, we are not even a government at war...hence the long discussion on the post about 3---now 5--retired generals who have said no thanks to doing the "War Czar" job
Tom
Am I reading too much into it, or was it a display of leadership that the SECDEF made the tough announcement instead of foisting it off on Pete Geren or Geo. Casy?
Gates Leading
I would say you are on the mark--and he did it without asking "Mother, May I?" to the White House....Am I reading too much into it, or was it a display of leadership that the SECDEF made the tough announcement instead of foisting it off on Pete Geren or Geo. Casy?
TomSeattle Post-Intelligencer
April 13, 2007
Bush Didn't Know Gates Extended Tours In Iraq
By Ken Herman, Cox News Service
WASHINGTON -- When President Bush said this week that the Democrats' push for troop withdrawals could cause longer tours of duty for soldiers in Iraq, he was unaware that his defense secretary had already decided to extend those tours, the White House said Thursday.
It also confirmed that officials are urgently looking for someone to serve in a new position overseeing the war effort. National security adviser Stephen Hadley's confirmation of this came a day after the White House downplayed reports that it is creating what some are calling a "war czar" post.
Bush's comments Tuesday about troop deployments were part of his offensive against Democrats, who are insisting on setting troop withdrawal timetables, a move he blames for delaying emergency funding for U.S. troops in Iraq.
"The bottom line is this," Bush said. "Congress' failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines."
On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace announced that 12-month tours of duty in Iraq are being extended to 15 months.
I personally thought that was a good move on the SECDEFs part and showed true leadership. Rather than a) letting rumors abound and b) passing the announcement of bad news to a subordinate, he took charge and did it himself. There's probably the only aspect of this whole situation that I was impressed with. Great thought Old Eagle.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
I always get a little hot under the collar about comparisons about how much more the WWII generation had to go through. The typical WWII vet was only in the Army a couple years, had a nearly infinitisimal chance of seeing actual combat and the country was much more committed to supporting him.
Today's soldier will see several years of combat, and even the people in "safe" places get mortared, rocketed, and IED'd.
The issue as I see it is that the Army seems to be incapable of solving is getting the 60% of teat-suckers who've somehow avoided deployment out of their "safe" assignments and into the game. The Army Reserve just reclassified folks wholesale and sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army can't seem to figure this out.
Last edited by 120mm; 04-16-2007 at 08:58 AM.
Somewhat true but look at the death totals and get back to me when you can make them balance the way you seem to think they should.always get a little hot under the collar about comparisons about how much more the WWII generation had to go through. The typical WWII vet was only in the Army a couple years, had a nearly infinitisimal chance of seeing actual combat and the country was much more committed to supporting him.
I would also question where the 60% "teat-suckers" figure comes from; who exactly do you feel fall into this category?
The real point in discussing WWII is that the country was indeed more committed and that is why WWII did not last any longer than it did.
Tom
Agreed Tom. I just posted something similary in response to Rob's question about the public will to sacrifice. The government ensured the country was more committed. I own a WWII era Garand made by Harrington and Richardson. Before the war, they were making typewriters. They shifted their industrial base to make weapons for the soldiers. Have we seen anything similar to that in a major way across our society? Its almost like the government wants to isolate the population from the current war, rather than expose/enlist them into the fight. One result of this is the Army Memorandum authorizing/encouraging soldiers to fly in their ACUs on civilian flights, even US flagged carriers going OCONUS. To quote the ALARACT Message dated 3 FEB 05 "To keep the dedicated efforts of our soldiers visible to the American public, the ACU, BDU and DBDU are authorized for wear during commerical travel both CONUS and OCONUS."
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/unifor...%20message.pdf
Sad, when we have to fly in uniform to "remind" the public that we are at war.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
Comments on this bandaid effort by DoD for long deployments????
DoD Announces Program to Recognize Frequent Deployment
The Department of Defense announced today a program to recognize service members who deploy or mobilize beyond the established rotation policy goals. The goals for the Active and Guard/Reserve units are one year deployed to two years at home station (1:2) and one year mobilized to five years demobilized (1:5) respectively.
Administrative absence will be granted to service members when these goals are not met and can be used at their convenience. This is provided to enhance the service member's quality of life and will be done on the following basis:
- One day for each month a service member is deployed over 12 of 36 consecutive months of active duty or over 12 months of a 72 month period mobilized for the guard/reserves.
- Two days will be granted when thresholds of more than 18 of 36 consecutive months for active duty or 18 of 72 months for the guard/reserve are exceeded.
- Four days will be provided when thresholds of more than 24 of 36 consecutive months for active duty or 24 of 72 months for the guard/reserve are exceeded.
Administrative absence is authorized by the commander. It is separate and distinct from normal leave accrued by a service member.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/...eleaseid=10760
Well, it seems I was wrong. At least about the divorce bit.
Families Under Stress: An Assessment of Data, Theory, and Research on Marriage and Divorce in the Military
...Although rates of marital dissolution have increased since 2001 for most services and components, they had declined in the five years prior to 2001. As a result, marital dissolution rates across the services and components are currently similar to those observed in 1996, when the demands on the military were measurably lower. In most cases, service members who were deployed had a lower risk of subsequently ending their marriages than service members who did not deploy or deployed fewer days....
bandaid
hmm, an extra day per month for anything over 12. I asked some friends who are currently being affected by this decision this is what they say. Morale in most NCO's has not changed unless they were dealing with unfavorable issues back stateside, i.e. family's that emotionally can't/wont deal with another 90 days. younger soldiers on their first deployment, very burnt out and angry about not being told by the Army as opposed to hearing it on the television. The NCO's seem to be handling it pretty well with mentorship, as for anyone that was due to ETS or entering re-enlistment window, most had planned on staying in and didnt mind the extension as in the past that meant they would have been paid a bonus of 1,000 per month, with the new 1 day for 30 these folks are none too happy basically they feel like its lip service, in essence they feel that 90 more days of combat for a three day weekend is more of an insult then anything else. Personally i enjoy the longer deployments as i see longer periods between shortfalls in the intelligence cycle due to rotations, I do see myself definatly stressing mentorship to the other NCO's in my unit for all of our newbies.
I signed on the line and took my oath, mission first. Fort Living Room is at the conveniance of Army.
On the Thursday before this story broke, I had lunch with a good friend of mine who was one of the guys working these models in the Army G-3/5. No decision had been reached at that time. The following Monday it was a big story. The soldiers have a right to be mad about hearing it on TV first, but the story got leaked. That is why Gates was on TV laying out the policy, and not the CSA or Secretary of the Army. The intent was for the leadership to break the news first to soldiers and the families first, but the media got the scoop and ran with it. I think there might be a thread somewhere on the site about military/media relations........maybe......
"Sad, when we have to fly in uniform to "remind" the public that we are at war." (Sullygoarmy)
You got that right but I am not perceiving too much hostility being directed at the individual service man/woman, which is a good thing. Hope floats. Our military is still trusted unlike our politicians
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks