Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Army Wearing Out?

Nancy Pelosi ordinarily bugs the living hell out of me. Every time I see her botoxed face on TV, I cringe. But someone one her staff Congressmen Dave Obey and John Murtha have just put together an extremely smart and provacative report on the state of Army readiness. Take a read, and post your thoughts. Here's a snip:

wartired.jpg

In June of 2003, the Pentagon’s planners assumed that the U.S. would withdraw all of its combat brigades from Iraq roughly 20 months after the end of major combat operations. Those plans were revised in September of that year, and assumed a complete withdrawal about one year later than had previously been expected. Today, there are 16 U.S. combat brigades in Iraq (including 2 Marine Corps regiments), and there is little prospect that the deployment rate will decrease in the near future...

The Army currently has 39 active-duty combat brigades, as it builds to a total of 42 under the restructuring plan known as “modularity.” Over the coming months, roughly 19.5 combat brigades will be committed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Army doctrine calls for 2 units to be held in reserve (for rest and training) for every unit deployed. As of today, the Army has only one unit in reserve for every unit deployed – a ratio that history shows cannot be sustained for any length of time without serious adverse consequences to the force...

Army military readiness rates have declined to levels not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. Roughly one-half of all Army units (deployed and non-deployed, active and reserves) received the lowest readiness rating any fully formed unit can receive. Prior to 9/11, only about 20 percent of the Army received this lowest rating – a fact driven almost exclusively by shortfalls in the reserves...

Of the 16 active-duty, non-deployed combat brigades in the United States managed by the Army’s Forces Command, the vast majority of them are rated at the lowest readiness ratings. These ratings are caused by severe equipment shortages.

Of particular concern is the readiness rates of the units scheduled to deploy later this year, particularly the 1st Cavalry Division. This division and its 4 brigades will deploy to Iraq in October at the lowest level of readiness because of equipment shortfalls. To meet its needs, this unit – like virtually all other units that have recently deployed or will soon deploy to Iraq – must fall-in on equipment in theater. Operating unfamiliar, battle weary equipment increases the potential for casualties and accidents...

Funding shortfalls have created backlogs at all of the Army’s key depot maintenance facilities. At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, some 600 M1 tanks sit in disuse. At Red River Army Depot in Texas, 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and over 450 trucks have not been serviced. Roughly 2,600 Humvees are sitting idle at various Army depots. Tens of thousands of small arms, communications sets, and other key items have been similarly backlogged.

UPDATE 7:18 PM: It should be noted that this assessment closely mirrors what the Army has been saying itself, again and again, in private meetings on Capitol Hill.

"There are no more troops to send to Iraq," Daniel Benjamin writes in Slate. "That is the unmistakable message of an Army briefing making the rounds in Washington. According to in-house assessments... not a single one of the Army's Brigade Combat Teams — its core fighting units — currently in the United States is ready to deploy. In short, the Army has no strategic reserve to speak of."

Comments

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 03:14 AM


Did any 1 consider that the actions taken of patrolling iraq and setting up strips and bases while over there give us in a great location if our troops had to go bust iran down if they were to get out of hand? Seeing how some on here decided 2 use great quotes to get their opinions across 2 the readers, has ne 1 ever heard of "keep ur friends close, and ur enemies even closer?" holding iraq keeps iran so close that they would fear doing ne thing 2 drastic that would result in an american retaliation

Posted by: miggy at March 30, 2008 12:14 PM


Reset is complicated, but the degree of change varies from unit to unit. For some organizations, there's a lot of equipment swapping, fielding, and serious change; for others - the three brigades I mentioned in the 82nd - it's essentially just institutionalizing their usual organization for deployment. It's hard to generalize without a fairly detailed level of knowledge. There's risk associated with the force transformation, but the maneuver brigades in the ac will be largely transformed by 2010 - but if it didn't happen quickly, what are the odds that it would ever happen at all? Stretch it out to fifteen or twenty years, and you leave a lot of wiggle room to every parochial service interest to subvert, alter, or slow the process.

It's great to talk about increasing active duty endstrength, but really - where are the troops going to come from? If we can just barely fill our quotas for the existing force, how on earth would we fill for a force that's 100,000 stronger? And once we get them, remember that we commit to a full career life cycle plus lifespan retirement costs for that force. DoD's budget looks like General Motors' already - add another 100k to that, and guess what you get - both now and twenty years down the road?

Posted by: Nanonymous at September 16, 2006 08:52 AM


"The US went into Iraq with the Army we had"

There is a vast difference between a conscripted (citizen's) army and a volunteer army, which in principle agrees with the mission. Vietnam taught that imperial wars of aggression cannot be fought with a conscripted army (draft dodgers, conscientious objectors, fragging officers, etc.).

"Prevailing wage rates are just too high in the private sector for the uniformed services to compete."

Which is why the volunteer army is primarily composed of the lower socio-economic strata, as they have little or no other opportunity. This level of recruits results in lower performance.

"Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

The US administration has violated every rule Sun Tzu wrote as well as the entire Powell Doctrine, learned at such bitter cost in Vietnam.

"With out any quantinable political goals in Iraq the U.S. has no business in Iraq."

Ah, but with very definite strategic and economic goals, this administration will not revise what is essentially a very successful economic policy despite strategic and humanitarian failures, loss of life, loss of stature, etc. If you disagree with the economic success of this action, I suggest you look at the stock performance of various related industries and investment firms such as the Carlyle Group. (http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html)

The size of the military is relevent only to wars of conquest the US initiates (and we clearly initiated this one). The US has enemies (comprised exclusively of those who have been trodden upon by empire), but none have even the slightest chance of raising a conventional military challenge (this may change as forces and capabilities are depleted and opponents trained in anti-US combat.

Posted by: Noah (the other one) at September 15, 2006 08:29 PM


The two theater war that the Pentagon pushed during the 1990's was always BS. It was totally not plausible, in the threat nor our ability to respond. They needed a justification for Congress' and the Pentagon's expensive weapons systems.

The military did a lot a COTW during the 90's though, we all know about them. Apparently no one ever listened to any after action reports, because if they did, they would have shifted resources, training and focus away from the conventional hi-tech nation-state war, that they dream of, to what we actually required then, and now.

Taking down Governments is easy, quick and requires few combat troops. Keeping the “peace” and the rebuilding afterwards is time consuming, expensive, and it requires lots of troops on the ground for a decade. In fact, the more troops the better, preferably multi-national.

You are right, there is no way the US military can supply the minimum 500,000 troops that we need. We need to find a nation or two that does have ample bodies (not Europe). It is time to BUY some Allies.

Posted by: BT at September 15, 2006 05:11 PM


I was always skeptical of whether or not a 500,000 man Army was big enough to handle the old 2 MTWs planning model. What if we didn't win that first war in 30-60 days and the other conflict flaired up?

After 9/11, I fully expected to see Rumsfeld nudge U.S. troop levels up by at least 100,000 if not 200,000. The problem is that doing so would be incredibly expensive. If military recruiters are dipping into Category 4 to fill the enlisted ranks. Adding more roles would only make a bad situation worse.

The only other way to draw up more warm bodies would be to bring back the dreaded "d-word." I honestly don't think even a Republican-dominated federal government could whether that decision. The political class is so devoid of former uniforms that I doubt either party could stomach a draft (or weather the 2008 election).

All the military logisticians who read this will probably agree with me when I say reset is more than just an administrative affair. You honestly can't push down too hard on the reset timeline without damaging unit cohesion and equipment turnaround.

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 15, 2006 03:28 PM


I'd like to know how many of those units posted a low level of readiness because they were in the process of reorganizing. That's an entirely different matter from being worn out. And it's not true that units uniformly take 2-3 years to reorganize; the plans for shifting units and people around are complex, but some units (like, say, the three existing maneuver brigades of the 82nd Airborne) will essentially just be conducting an admin reorganization, and shedding a battalion.

Falling in on unfamiliar equipment isn't exactly a new phenomenon for the Army. Deploying brigades at the National Training Center used to fall in on complete unit sets when they deployed, to save on the rail load and transportation requirement; at the end of each deployment they turned the stuff back in again. The claim that it's hard to fall in on the equipment you're trained on seems pretty thin to me.

Posted by: Nanonymous at September 15, 2006 02:04 PM


Good Morning Folks,

Perhaps we are at the junction where war stops and politics begain. The efforts of the U.S. in Iraq and now Afghanistan are at best at a quagmire but more likely in reverse. The report from marine Col. Peter Devlin that was all over the web last week and badly quoted by the Washington Post and The New York Time this week in a nut shell sums up all of Iraq.

More troops were needed back in 2003 but now I think any increase would be a waste of resources. With out any quantinable political goals in Iraq the U.S. has no business in Iraq.

All the point brought up by "Robot Economist" are correct, out ground forces are dieing both figuratively and literlly because of Iraq. Maybe the defination of winning in termsof the 19th.and 20th. Century no longer apply.

There are going to be other "Wars" in this struggle with Terrorists is waisting respurces in Iraq in the best interest of the future.

Politically Saddam didn't go away. The judge yesterday declaired him NOT TO BR A DICTATOR maybe that an opening Washington should use to reduce our burden we call Iraq.

Saddam is a politician not a religious zellot and cutting a deal with him is a real possibility. With in the proper constraints like U.S. forces based in Iraq and an Iraqi military structured for domestic purposes not agression agaist it's neighbors maybe he is the answer to the question the Bush Administration is to afraid to ask.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 15, 2006 01:09 PM


I like the picture to guys I think I have even seen it on Aljizz. Great work everyone has to do thier part ya know greater good real evil and all that.

Posted by: C-Low at September 15, 2006 11:43 AM


Wow and just imagine that back pre-60's mentality we used to consider experienced soldiers battle hardened seasoned giving them a huge edge over green un seasoned forces. In WW2 we were actually so stupid as to waste thousands dead in Vichy France, North Africa, Sicily, Italy all before Normandy because we wanted to get our troops seasoned. What dum as*ses.

Our much more enlightened after-60's mentality of warfare experts like Pelosi, Durbin, rapid reaction support to Iraq from Okinawa Murtha “redeploy”, and of course the almighty US troops terrorizing innocent Iraqi women and children in the night Kerry. And let’s not forget we now have doctors well at least Physiologist that can vouch that once a man faces combat he is ruined ruined I tell ya.

I don’t think we need more troops in Iraq it may sound evil or cruel but if their wasn’t the violence currently in Iraq the Iraqi government would not be so willing to work together and our influence over the foundation principles of their government would be nill.

However I would fully support taking the military back to the levels of the early Clinton days when we could actually put 700k men in the field without calling guard and instituting a draft. I would fully support taking the military budget back to Reagan level percentages instead of the meager off hand don’t quote me 4-5% we are currently at.

I won’t be holding my breath for the Democrats to propose such a bill for such military increases. If I was Bush I would definitely call the Dems on such rhetoric with a bill of my own as my new by-partisan bill to drastically increase the military suggested by Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, Durban ect….. I would love to see that one play out Pelosi co authoring doubling the military budget and force numbers to prepare for the widespread war we may have to commit to if our enemies refuse to comply.

Posted by: C-Low at September 15, 2006 11:38 AM


At the risk of sounding partisan, can Murtha really be trusted with military analysis after his "We could have bombed Zarquawi from Okinawa" remarks? The man clearly has an agenda.
If he is correct on the other hand, the state of the military is pretty said. Whether right or wrong, the world's strongest military power should have enough strength to occupy a third world country indefinitely. After all, if we cannot win in Iraq, how can we hope to do anything in Iran, should the need arise? What about china? Should we just surrender our superpower license now and be done with it?

Posted by: Vash at September 15, 2006 10:19 AM


When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength, and if the campaign is protracted, there sources of the state will not be equal to the strain. Never forget: When your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted, and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme. importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war who can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

The skillful general does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply wagons loaded more than twice. Once war is declared, he will not waste precious time in waiting for reinforcements, nor will he turn his army back for fresh supplies, but crosses the enemy's frontier without delay. The value of time-that is, being a little ahead of your opponent-has counted for more than either numerical superiority or the nicest calculations with regard to commissariat.

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate. the man on whom it depends whether the nation shal~ be in peace or in peril.

Sun Tzu wrote these words before christ, before the tribes of the hebrews, at the time when civilization existed in only a few pockets of the planet, yet his words are still relavent. Will rumsfield's reforms be remembered a thousand, two thousand or three thousand years hence? i highly doubt it.

The longer a force trained for fast motorized warfare is used to garrison iraq the more it will unravel as the disconnect betweeen doctrine and reality shake the faith of the rank and file. If the military transforms into an occupation force it will find that the traits to be successful as a "police force" will prove detrimental when engaged with revolutionary guard battle groups as the israelis have discovered in s.leb. The military is on the horns of a dilemma and the president and his staff are asleep at the wheel daydreaming about the new middle-east and containing china.

Posted by: Azrael at September 15, 2006 09:43 AM


BT - Its all about demographics and economics. Walter Russell Mead brought up your point two years ago in his "Power, Terror, Peace and War." The American population is just too wealthy to field a force of ground troops larger than 500,000-600,000. Prevailing wage rates are just too high in the private sector for the uniformed services to compete. Thankfully, we've been able to offset some of that by recruiting heavily from immigrant groups, especially Hispanic-Americans.

Things may be bad, but they are much worse in Europe. The social models practiced by most European states draw even more citizens away from military service than the private sector in the U.S. does. On top of that, low fertility and tight immigration policies are slowly draining their pools of ready manpower.

Its funny that so much has been made of the technologic side of the Revolution in Military Affairs, but no attention has been paid the socio-economic side. The military revolutions of the 16th, 19th and 20th Centuries had enormous impacts on their contemporary societies, governments and markets.

Why haven't people realized the 21st Century revolution would be no different?

Posted by: Robot.Economist at September 15, 2006 09:04 AM


The US went into Iraq with the Army we had at the time, not the Army of 1991, which was considerably larger but less 'shock and awe' inspiring. The JCS have decided, wisely, to not deploy the brigades with their heavy equipment, each brigade deploys and uses the Abrams, Bradleys, HETTs that are in theater. So if the Army is cash poor, should they emphasise maintaining the stateside equipment as highly as they would like? I don't think so, I think they are concentrating their money on the equipment their soldiers will be fighting with, I would like our reserve to be combat ready as well, but that isn't the real world. Bush refused to ask us to sacrifice to win this war on terror and one consequence of that is that we are fighting on the cheap.

The Army is simply too small to do much else, which accounts for Rumsfeld's much maligned comment, "you fight with the Army you have".

Posted by: ziv at September 15, 2006 08:09 AM


Gee Whiz! One more example of the Dubya-Rummy incompetence. What else is new? Think they can handle anything else - Iran, North Korea, Christian-Islamic war (see Pope's historic commentary and hysterical response)? Some of the above, all of the above.

Posted by: CelticCurmudgeon at September 15, 2006 07:26 AM


How pathetic. The US military can't sustain 150,000 combat troops plus their support troops indefinitely. Is the problem money, logistical resources or lack of personnel? The US military gets what they deserve for living in their China fantasy the last ten years.

Typical insurgencies and normal post conflict stabilizations missions last 10-15 years. Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other country we take on (Iran) are no different. Blame the Powel Doctrine, for wanting a "drive by shooting", instead of long-term recovery effort.

This reality needs to be planned and financed prior to interventions. If we do not plan for that contingency, then don’t even bother threatening anyone?

In the future, if we need more troops, I know of a few countries (BRIC) that would supply them at the RIGHT price.

As for Iraq, I say privatize the damn war with MERC’s. I believe at last count there was already like 20,000 private security people in theater.

Posted by: BT at September 14, 2006 08:36 PM


I was in a briefing about this time last year covering the rollout of the ARFORGEN policy. At the end of the brief, someone from the audience asked the briefer (he was an LTC I believe) whether ARFORGEN was compatible for deployment to Iraq. The answer was "Over the next 2-3 years, just barely."

Think of it this way, an active duty brigade that is fielded for one year needs at least 2 years (optimally 3) to reset when they return home. This is mostly because the unit needs to replace a fair amount of equipment and train up new soldiers. Thankfully, our brave men and women in green have been re-enlisting at really high rates, so they could afford to have their reset time short-circuited some.

The problem is that this trend cannot continue forever and in about a year or two, we will probably see retention rates drop significantly. No matter how patriotic or committed a soldier is, he or she will eventually tire of constant deployment or max out on rank. If you think recuitment shortfalls are bad now, just wait 9 to 12 months.

Posted by: Robot Economist at September 14, 2006 08:05 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.