I recently asked the question of what the current admin’s plan is for our over-stretched military, and I would like to ask it of you, since you seem to be one of the people staring the problem in the face: With troops–many of them reserve or NG–being put on multiple/extended tours of duty, they and their materiel being stressed and worn out, and their families being severely strained or broken, what is the solution to meeting the military’s staffing needs in the future? Maybe I’m crazy, but I can’t see that the current course is sustainable, and I would sooner believe in the Easter Bunny than believe that the present, surged-up battle plan is going to somehow succeed and allow our troops a break and a chance to return to their old routines of deployed/home duty.
What would you do? Can you increase pay/decrease entry standards enough to lure and retain sufficient troops? Do you outsource even more formerly military jobs to private contractors? Do you shuffle the types of recruits/troops to different tasks/branches? (I’ve seen, for instance, that Naval and Air Force troops have lately been assigned to tasks that would normally fall to the Army; so do you just say, “Navy, Air Force, you can’t have any more recruits this year–they all go to the Army, and they’re all going to drive trucks/guard embassies/handle paperwork/etc., not fly planes.”)
There are three categories that we are concerned with. One is resetting the force from a material stand point. As we know, it's one thing to drive a Hummer around a military base in Virginia. It’s another to be driving it around 125 miles a day, in the desert, at 60 mph, and driving it hard to stay alive. We are just chewing up gear at a crazy rate, and eating into the expected service life at an alarming rate.
On the manpower side, there are concerns on both the active and reserve side. On the reserve side, we are putting Solders who signed up with the expectation of one mobilization of a year to 18 months per career, and putting them on two to three or more deployments. The active military has a vastly increased op tempo as well. Right now we are primarily throwing money at the problem. Increased bonuses for accessions and retention. We are also retraining folks from supporting functions to combat arms. But that has limited utility. As you noted, the Navy and the Air Force reservists are performing functions in theatre for the Army and Marine corps to free up there personnel. But that begs the question, what is the Army doing with the truck drivers that have been freed up? It's not like they are going to be flying helos now.
Recruiting continues to be an issue, especially for the ground guys, the Army and Marine Corps. But you can't tell a potential recruit looking in to the Air Force that they now must joint the Marine Corps. It doesn't work that way. They'll tell you to pound sand. Compounding this it the fact that, due to the nature of the beast, the Marine Corps and Army are on average much younger than the Navy and Air Force. And they have huge turnover at the most junior levels - by design. So when recruiting is down, as it is now, they are felling the effects in their corps competency which is Ground Combat Elements.
The current plan is to increase the Army and Marine Corps troop levels to alleviate some of the stress on the active and reserve force. This in done through an increase in recruiters and bonuses. So far, that is doing the job, but it can’t go on forever. Current thinking is that the war will end before the current plan fails. But retentionis taking a hit, so this will effect the military to some degree for years. And as noted earlier, there is no plan, or stomach for a draft, within the military itself. I can tell you whenever we see an article in the Washington post discussing the resumption of the draft, we post in on the wall and laugh out loud at it. It’s a total non starter.
It does seem weird at first, but remember that everyone’s tax situation is different…dependents, filing status, deductions, credits, you name it. So any government employee just has to file like anyone else.
Why wouldnt’ a draft work? There aren’t a whole lot of places American draft dodgers could move to.
Do you think that’s due in part to up-or-out retention policies? Seems to me if a noncom rises to Master Sargeant, and that’s the best he’s ever going to do, the Army loses more by firing him for being passed over than it does by keeping him on. Similarly for an Army officer that can’t rise beyond captain; yet my understanding is that if you’re passed over for advancement a couple of times you’re expected to resign.
Actually, the best he’ll ever do is the rank he was *before *his last promotion. After all, if he were any good, he’d be promoted again, right? Good captains are made into majors; captains who can’t become majors probably aren’t all that good.
Not sure - I think you are talking about The Peter Principle
people are promoted to their point of inefficiency
That tends to hold true when promotion is done by incompetents, but I can see a really good captain making a lousy major - also a lousy field lieutenant making a very good adminstrative captain.
I don’t think a draft in the USA would achieve the desired results because of Iraq, or maybe because of Iraq following Vietnam - Iraq is not a remotely ‘good’ cause.
Incidentally I know of a few people who ‘volunteered’ when they knew they would be drafted - as one of them said (my uncle in WWII) what is the point of waiting for the letter ?