Posted on Aug 15, 2015
Does this article send the right message of where the Army is headed? - The Army is broken!
53K
122
74
20
20
0
Does this article send the right message of where the Army is headed? - The Army is broken!
Found this very interesting article that shows the direction of the Army as we have seen it transition throughout out a short historical period and from the perspective of a warrior - one of our own. Thought I would share it with the RP Community. Its nothing new, and we have been talking about this in other discussions, but I still found it very interesting and very true! Just for your read!
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/15/the-army-is-broken/
By Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. He originally wrote this for The Washington Post.
--
Last month, Gen. Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, and Gen. Mark Milley, his successor, testified to the difficulties faced by the Army. I’d like to make the same points by telling a story.
When I was a boy, tonsillitis was a dangerous illness. In 1952, it kept me in Tokyo General Hospital for weeks. I shared a cramped ward with dozens of soldiers horribly maimed in Korea. The hospital had only one movie theater. I remember watching a Western sandwiched between bandage- and plaster-wrapped bodies. I remember the antiseptic smells, the cloud of cigarette smoke and the whispers of young men still traumatized by the horrors of the war they had just left.
My dad came from Korea to visit me, and I recall our conversations vividly. At the time he was operations officer for the 2nd Engineer Battalion. He told me how poorly his men were prepared for war. Many had been killed or captured by the North Koreans. During the retreat from the Yalu River, some of his soldiers were in such bad physical shape that they dropped exhausted along the road to wait to be taken captive.
“We have no sergeants, son,” he told me, shaking his head, “and without them we are no longer an Army.”
In the early ‘70s, I was the same age as my Korean-era dad. I had just left Vietnam only to face another broken Army. My barracks were at war. I carried a pistol to protect myself from my own soldiers. Many of the soldiers were on hard drugs. The barracks were racial battlegrounds pitting black against white. Again, the Army had broken because the sergeants were gone. By 1971, most were either dead, wounded or had voted with their feet to get away from such a devastated institution.
I visited Baghdad in 2007 as a guest of Gen. David Petraeus. Before the trip I had written a column forecasting another broken Army, but it was clear from what Petraeus showed me that the Army was holding on and fighting well in the dangerous streets of Baghdad. Such a small and overcommitted force should have broken after so many serial deployments to that hateful place. But Petraeus said that his Army was different. It held together because junior leaders were still dedicated to the fight. To this day, I don’t know how they did it.
Sadly, the Army that stayed cohesive in Iraq and Afghanistan even after losing 5,000 dead is now being broken again by an ungrateful, ahistorical and strategically tone-deaf leadership in Washington.
The Obama administration just announced a 40,000 reduction in the Army’s ranks. But the numbers don’t begin to tell the tale. Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train; Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently said that the Army will not have enough money for most soldiers to train above the squad level this year. Soldiers need to fight with new weapons; in the past four years, the Army has canceled 20 major programs, postponed 125 and restructured 124. The Army will not replace its Reagan-era tanks, infantry carriers, artillery and aircraft for at least a generation. Soldiers stay in the ranks because they serve in a unit ready for combat; fewer than a third of the Army’s combat brigades are combat ready. And this initial 40,000 soldier reduction is just a start. Most estimates from Congress anticipate that without lifting the budget sequestration that is driving this across-the-board decline, another 40,000 troops will be gone in about two years.
But it’s soldiers who tell the story. After 13 years of war, young leaders are voting with their feet again. As sergeants and young officers depart, the institution is breaking for a third time in my lifetime. The personal tragedies that attended the collapse of a soldier’s spirit in past wars are with us again. Suicide, family abuse, alcohol and drug abuse are becoming increasingly more common.
To be sure, the nation always reduces its military as wars wind down. Other services suffer reductions and shortages. But only the Army breaks. Someone please tell those of us who served why the service that does virtually all the dying and killing in war is the one least rewarded.
My grandson is a great kid. He’s about the same age I was when I was recovering at Tokyo General. Both of his parents served as Army officers, so it’s no wonder that in school he draws pictures of tanks and planes while his second-grade classmates draw pictures of flowers and animals. The other day he drew a tank just for me and labeled it proudly: “Abrams Tank!”
Well, sadly, if he follows in our footsteps, one day he may be fighting in an Abrams tank. His tank will be 60 years old by then.
At the moment I’d rather he go to law school.
Found this very interesting article that shows the direction of the Army as we have seen it transition throughout out a short historical period and from the perspective of a warrior - one of our own. Thought I would share it with the RP Community. Its nothing new, and we have been talking about this in other discussions, but I still found it very interesting and very true! Just for your read!
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/15/the-army-is-broken/
By Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. He originally wrote this for The Washington Post.
--
Last month, Gen. Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, and Gen. Mark Milley, his successor, testified to the difficulties faced by the Army. I’d like to make the same points by telling a story.
When I was a boy, tonsillitis was a dangerous illness. In 1952, it kept me in Tokyo General Hospital for weeks. I shared a cramped ward with dozens of soldiers horribly maimed in Korea. The hospital had only one movie theater. I remember watching a Western sandwiched between bandage- and plaster-wrapped bodies. I remember the antiseptic smells, the cloud of cigarette smoke and the whispers of young men still traumatized by the horrors of the war they had just left.
My dad came from Korea to visit me, and I recall our conversations vividly. At the time he was operations officer for the 2nd Engineer Battalion. He told me how poorly his men were prepared for war. Many had been killed or captured by the North Koreans. During the retreat from the Yalu River, some of his soldiers were in such bad physical shape that they dropped exhausted along the road to wait to be taken captive.
“We have no sergeants, son,” he told me, shaking his head, “and without them we are no longer an Army.”
In the early ‘70s, I was the same age as my Korean-era dad. I had just left Vietnam only to face another broken Army. My barracks were at war. I carried a pistol to protect myself from my own soldiers. Many of the soldiers were on hard drugs. The barracks were racial battlegrounds pitting black against white. Again, the Army had broken because the sergeants were gone. By 1971, most were either dead, wounded or had voted with their feet to get away from such a devastated institution.
I visited Baghdad in 2007 as a guest of Gen. David Petraeus. Before the trip I had written a column forecasting another broken Army, but it was clear from what Petraeus showed me that the Army was holding on and fighting well in the dangerous streets of Baghdad. Such a small and overcommitted force should have broken after so many serial deployments to that hateful place. But Petraeus said that his Army was different. It held together because junior leaders were still dedicated to the fight. To this day, I don’t know how they did it.
Sadly, the Army that stayed cohesive in Iraq and Afghanistan even after losing 5,000 dead is now being broken again by an ungrateful, ahistorical and strategically tone-deaf leadership in Washington.
The Obama administration just announced a 40,000 reduction in the Army’s ranks. But the numbers don’t begin to tell the tale. Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train; Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently said that the Army will not have enough money for most soldiers to train above the squad level this year. Soldiers need to fight with new weapons; in the past four years, the Army has canceled 20 major programs, postponed 125 and restructured 124. The Army will not replace its Reagan-era tanks, infantry carriers, artillery and aircraft for at least a generation. Soldiers stay in the ranks because they serve in a unit ready for combat; fewer than a third of the Army’s combat brigades are combat ready. And this initial 40,000 soldier reduction is just a start. Most estimates from Congress anticipate that without lifting the budget sequestration that is driving this across-the-board decline, another 40,000 troops will be gone in about two years.
But it’s soldiers who tell the story. After 13 years of war, young leaders are voting with their feet again. As sergeants and young officers depart, the institution is breaking for a third time in my lifetime. The personal tragedies that attended the collapse of a soldier’s spirit in past wars are with us again. Suicide, family abuse, alcohol and drug abuse are becoming increasingly more common.
To be sure, the nation always reduces its military as wars wind down. Other services suffer reductions and shortages. But only the Army breaks. Someone please tell those of us who served why the service that does virtually all the dying and killing in war is the one least rewarded.
My grandson is a great kid. He’s about the same age I was when I was recovering at Tokyo General. Both of his parents served as Army officers, so it’s no wonder that in school he draws pictures of tanks and planes while his second-grade classmates draw pictures of flowers and animals. The other day he drew a tank just for me and labeled it proudly: “Abrams Tank!”
Well, sadly, if he follows in our footsteps, one day he may be fighting in an Abrams tank. His tank will be 60 years old by then.
At the moment I’d rather he go to law school.
Transition
Government Funding
Equipment
Branch
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 40
8
8
0
The Army isnt broken, we need to refocus on conventional warfare and do a better job taking care of our Soldiers.
(8)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Our preparedness for a conventional war is absolutely inadequate because in training scenarios where the threat is a tank regiment in a historically Christian region with a highly secular governent, the commander's question is "where will the IEDs be" and the staff want cultural analysis of local mosques.
Our preparedness for a conventional war is inadequate because instead of developing more and better anti-vehicle systems, we're designing a tank upgrade based around urban combat (not bad in and of itself) and fielding lightly-armed, extremely overweight vehicles designed to absorb mine blasts, while our fleet of light troop carriers is falling apart.
Our preparedness for conventional war is inadequate because we no longer update our FMs on conventional threat doctrine (IE FM 100-2-1) hasn't been updated since 1984, while the threat has evolved significantly - and remains much more dangerous than any terrorist threat could be (unless it possessed advanced CBRN capabilities).
Our preparedness for a conventional war is inadequate because instead of developing more and better anti-vehicle systems, we're designing a tank upgrade based around urban combat (not bad in and of itself) and fielding lightly-armed, extremely overweight vehicles designed to absorb mine blasts, while our fleet of light troop carriers is falling apart.
Our preparedness for conventional war is inadequate because we no longer update our FMs on conventional threat doctrine (IE FM 100-2-1) hasn't been updated since 1984, while the threat has evolved significantly - and remains much more dangerous than any terrorist threat could be (unless it possessed advanced CBRN capabilities).
(1)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
Sir, I agree and disagree with you.
The Army is not now, and was never "broken." The Army in and of itself is still great. People, however, we are broken and flawed. From the tip top: a government that sends our troops to battle and does not let them fight, to that platoon sergeant that is disgruntled and has forgotten to act like an NCO, the Army will triumph, if the politicians will let the Army run the Army.
The Army is not now, and was never "broken." The Army in and of itself is still great. People, however, we are broken and flawed. From the tip top: a government that sends our troops to battle and does not let them fight, to that platoon sergeant that is disgruntled and has forgotten to act like an NCO, the Army will triumph, if the politicians will let the Army run the Army.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
CPT (Join to see) - I'm glad to see I'm not the only person seeing this developing with Russia and China.
All of these Russian bombers routinely encroaching into our airspace over Alaska seems to be nuisances, but may also be operations to test our response capabilities.
These Nations know we have problems in our leadership and our citizens are at odds with the military, the police, and even each other.
We have an election year which can be summed up by the title of a reality TV show and could very well be called , "Election 2016: The Great Coin Toss."
Less than 10 years after an attack on our country caused us to shut down our Nation, people are now tired of too much security, so we are now barely more secure than we were before 9-11.
The public would rather sacrifice our National Security because they do not want the inconvenience and are too scared to offend anyone.
I think that our Nation Is actually a very soft target for any country with a competitive military. Realistically, the United States military is ranked number 1 globally, with Russia and China at 2 and 3.
Imagine if Russia and China decided to team up. How prepared are we as a Nation to protect ourselves from that?
It's chess my friends, pure and simple. You always need to think 3 moves ahead of your opponents moves.
Infortunately, and I say this with as much respect as I can muster, it seems that our Nations leaders are still stuck at the checkers table while our enemies are poising to take a king.
Checkers and chess my fellow warriors, checkers and chess, and if you want to play checkers you never set at a table with more than just red and black chips.
All of these Russian bombers routinely encroaching into our airspace over Alaska seems to be nuisances, but may also be operations to test our response capabilities.
These Nations know we have problems in our leadership and our citizens are at odds with the military, the police, and even each other.
We have an election year which can be summed up by the title of a reality TV show and could very well be called , "Election 2016: The Great Coin Toss."
Less than 10 years after an attack on our country caused us to shut down our Nation, people are now tired of too much security, so we are now barely more secure than we were before 9-11.
The public would rather sacrifice our National Security because they do not want the inconvenience and are too scared to offend anyone.
I think that our Nation Is actually a very soft target for any country with a competitive military. Realistically, the United States military is ranked number 1 globally, with Russia and China at 2 and 3.
Imagine if Russia and China decided to team up. How prepared are we as a Nation to protect ourselves from that?
It's chess my friends, pure and simple. You always need to think 3 moves ahead of your opponents moves.
Infortunately, and I say this with as much respect as I can muster, it seems that our Nations leaders are still stuck at the checkers table while our enemies are poising to take a king.
Checkers and chess my fellow warriors, checkers and chess, and if you want to play checkers you never set at a table with more than just red and black chips.
(0)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
SPC (Join to see) - Well said soldier. We stopped studying Soviet battle doctrine years ago.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The fact that politicians are supporting a reduction in troops, less funding which affects training and equipment doesn't mean the Army is broken. This is a reflection of politics and affects the military's readiness ability, it is not a reflection of the spirit of the Army, the quality of our members, or our fitness.
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CPT (Join to see) I agree and please don't think I posted the discussion thinking that it is completely broke. I posted it to drum up conversatin and that it did, but also wanted to show the trend throughout history on the ups and downs of the Army. The Army is the greatest and it will prevail. Let's just get the right leadership at the helm again and we will bounce back stronger and better.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
It's got some manning issues and smaller Army. Coupled with more Global War On Terror issues.
(4)
(0)
LTC Stephen Conway
The Rumsfeld go with what you have and, if necessary, make hillbilly armor again.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; I wouldn't say "The Army is broken." but I might go along with "The Army is being stressed near its breaking point.".
If the Army "loses its Sergeants" then it is REALLY in a bad way.
If the Army "loses its Sergeants and Junior Officers" then it is approaching moribund.
You have to have the Sergeants to "motivate and keep under control" the young pups who they outrank and to "train and keep under control" the young pups who command them.
You have to have the Junior Officers to inspire and drive the troops into doing the necessary stuff that no one in their right mind would do, under conditions no one in their right mind would accept.
What the "pointy hats" like you and me are for is to see that the actual lethal weapon that is the Army is aimed in the right direction and has as many of the best tools to do their job that we can provide them with. (Of course, without us "pointy hats" you'd probably find the whole of the Army down at 'Sid's Bar and Knock Shop'.
If the Army "loses its Sergeants" then it is REALLY in a bad way.
If the Army "loses its Sergeants and Junior Officers" then it is approaching moribund.
You have to have the Sergeants to "motivate and keep under control" the young pups who they outrank and to "train and keep under control" the young pups who command them.
You have to have the Junior Officers to inspire and drive the troops into doing the necessary stuff that no one in their right mind would do, under conditions no one in their right mind would accept.
What the "pointy hats" like you and me are for is to see that the actual lethal weapon that is the Army is aimed in the right direction and has as many of the best tools to do their job that we can provide them with. (Of course, without us "pointy hats" you'd probably find the whole of the Army down at 'Sid's Bar and Knock Shop'.
(4)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Agree with this. However, when they throw away 1,500+ Majors and CPTs, over a short time period, unless they start using the senior NCOs that remain for more responsible positions, that will eventually bite us in the rear. We are extremely top heavy, take your choice as to where and what rank. A few O-4's used to command submarines, now no one gets command below O-5. Korea should have taught us a lesson as to what happens with a hollowed out military.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I think someone else posted this article, I've read it before. I've heard stories about the old school Army with it's gangs and drug problems. I don't see us as headed that way. Just because we are drawing the force down doesn't mean we are hollowing it out. We are using QSP and QMP boards to drop the lowest performers and those who got in trouble. Basically, promotion will become more competitive and slower, like it was before the war. Recruiting and retention goals will be decreased.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs I have read a few of his articles and they all seem to be about something negative with the Army. IMO he has an agenda that he is pushing.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
It is a broken system. There are so many young NCOs that are getting out even though they have so much potential. They are tired of the way things are going in the military. There is no such thing as career satisfaction. Young officers are unfairly placed into jobs that they don't want and probably shouldn't be in. How does a college student majoring in underwater basket weaving with a 4.0 but weighs 260lbs get infantry, and then a foreign language major with a 3.1 because they failed college chemistry get branched chemical? It's because we are a number. It's abundantly clear that the only people that care are the individuals. There needs to be something more to keep young NCOs and Comapny Grade Officers in the army.
(3)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CPT (Join to see) Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this discussion. I owe you a "vote up" tomorrow - I ran out today already!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
From my perspective as a veteran the drawdown is normal occurrence after being bolstered previously by war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where the Army is taking the hit is by removing by way of QMP, MEB's and what means it can, is the NCO Corps. Soon there will be an Army of NCO's not battle ready to lead into any wars in the near future. My concern is the BACKBONE of the Army is broken, with all PC and catering to the individual. Hell let the Army just put the next war to vote before the POTUS and Congress commit!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I agree with this, but morale is also negatively impacted when politicians send us with all the equipment we need to fight and win a war, but then tell us to be "less violent."
The Russians have no ROE's or RUF's when they fight. The insurgents, Taliban, ISIS, ISIL, and any other acronym you might think of all refuse to let "public opinion" run their wars.
Now, let's look at this from a World View.
The United States had the strictest ROE's and RUF's of any military in the Middle East.
We liberated Kuwait, and saved an entire Country from falling. Were we looked at as heroes? Only to the Kuwaiti's.
The rest of the world focused on how the US messed up by not forcing Sadam out the first time, and after just a couple of years, the United States was once again a Nation that did not finish a war that we did not start.
Now, over 14 years since 9-11, we live in a Nation where half of the citizens think that we should have never dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
They have also forgotten of how scared they were after 9-11, and how much they praised the military and law enforcement. They now say we "overreacted" even though the majority, at the time, wanted nothing but blood and revenge.
Our Nation and its politicians want our military to be a pack of 100 pound Doberman pinchers guarding a junk yard. They buy them, train them to kill. Make them angry, and make them crave the flesh and blood of anyone who would challenge them. They make them the most dangerous, highly trained monsters who could defeat any attacker.
After all of this money and training, they get the Dobermans declawed, put muzzles on them, and keep them on leashes, because the lot owner's insurance company will not cover him if the dogs bite or kill an intruder.
A long explanation, but until our politicians, lawyers and media leave us alone to fight and win, our military will always have this issue.
One last note: we used such restraint in this war on terror that we lost hundreds of soldiers because of these restricted ROE's and RUF's.
With all of that restraint, and all of the money we paid to these countries, we are still looked at as the bad guys who destabilized a region.
So, we will have terrible and damaging press either way, so why don't we try bad press with a win this time?
I would like to see how it would turn out.
Why spend millions of dollars to train and equip soldiers with all the high speed skills and newest, deadliest weaponry and then tell them to play nice and don't hurt anyone.
That's all I got to say about that.
The Russians have no ROE's or RUF's when they fight. The insurgents, Taliban, ISIS, ISIL, and any other acronym you might think of all refuse to let "public opinion" run their wars.
Now, let's look at this from a World View.
The United States had the strictest ROE's and RUF's of any military in the Middle East.
We liberated Kuwait, and saved an entire Country from falling. Were we looked at as heroes? Only to the Kuwaiti's.
The rest of the world focused on how the US messed up by not forcing Sadam out the first time, and after just a couple of years, the United States was once again a Nation that did not finish a war that we did not start.
Now, over 14 years since 9-11, we live in a Nation where half of the citizens think that we should have never dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.
They have also forgotten of how scared they were after 9-11, and how much they praised the military and law enforcement. They now say we "overreacted" even though the majority, at the time, wanted nothing but blood and revenge.
Our Nation and its politicians want our military to be a pack of 100 pound Doberman pinchers guarding a junk yard. They buy them, train them to kill. Make them angry, and make them crave the flesh and blood of anyone who would challenge them. They make them the most dangerous, highly trained monsters who could defeat any attacker.
After all of this money and training, they get the Dobermans declawed, put muzzles on them, and keep them on leashes, because the lot owner's insurance company will not cover him if the dogs bite or kill an intruder.
A long explanation, but until our politicians, lawyers and media leave us alone to fight and win, our military will always have this issue.
One last note: we used such restraint in this war on terror that we lost hundreds of soldiers because of these restricted ROE's and RUF's.
With all of that restraint, and all of the money we paid to these countries, we are still looked at as the bad guys who destabilized a region.
So, we will have terrible and damaging press either way, so why don't we try bad press with a win this time?
I would like to see how it would turn out.
Why spend millions of dollars to train and equip soldiers with all the high speed skills and newest, deadliest weaponry and then tell them to play nice and don't hurt anyone.
That's all I got to say about that.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
We need to step back and see that more then likely we are being setup for either a take over, or the politicians are trying to turn us into an isolationist country again.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
As a leader I see it everyday. (Some not All) NCO's Losing their power to enforce standards and taking care of Soldiers,(Some not All) Officers too worried about the next OER and not being involved in the day to day issues and now working with the NCOs as a team. Too much individuality. Not enough cohesion. Too many of your Steller Soldiers either being forced out of the Army due to MEB or, Retirement, RCP, Poison Leadership.....and that's just a start. For those who sit on the thrown looking down everything looks good, for those of us in the trenches not so much. just a thought.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I saw the writing on the wall when the new NCOER came out. I know the officers used it, but for officers they get promoted most of the time it is pretty much automatic 01 through 03. It was very hard to make SSG we only picked up about 3-4% a month until recently, for some reason this year the Army is picking up about 8-9% this year, but that is no where near what officers are picking up at. This system works better for officers, because most will eventually pick up, at least through 03, but it is dog eat dog for NCO's who pick up much slower. Now if your chances of picking up depend on you being better than everyone, are you going to be a true team player? If you are a team player, are you going to end up being QMPed? Just my thoughts, I am sure there is someone out there that knows the system better than I do.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
All that he says is true. More attention is paid to what women can do, than what anyone can do. More time is spent listening to people talk about what they are not allowed to talk about, than listening to training instructions. More awards are given for being present, than for accomplishing anything. More people are departing to start fresh, than staying to fix it, and those who would choose to fix it, are seldom in positions to do so. Scarce is the unit that has more juniors than seniors, rare is the training that prepares fighters to fight. While standards are not unheard of, they are often on the wrong things. I wish it were not so, as I prepare to leave the service myself, I've had many occasions to be proud of those with whom I served, and what we accomplished. But I have also seen the worst elements rise easily, uncaught and unrecognized for whom and what they were when leaders were not watching. I've watched as people who literally did nothing but show up, walked away with significant awards, while those who did the work, had to fight to keep their own from being downgraded by those they made successful.
The NCO corps is the backbone of the Army, that is what they have always told us...and what most, if not all of us of all ranks have worked so hard to do is to keep that backbone strong. Now though...it appears as if the goal is to break that back, by trimming all the wrong places.
The NCO corps is the backbone of the Army, that is what they have always told us...and what most, if not all of us of all ranks have worked so hard to do is to keep that backbone strong. Now though...it appears as if the goal is to break that back, by trimming all the wrong places.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see)
That is a good idea, why do we have low performers who have say 200 promotion points getting promoted to SSG, when we have a lot of promotable SGT s with 650 plus points. I do not believe for one minute that we can not slide a capable promotable into an MOS, where the Army is saying we need capable SSG s and we are getting ready to promote everyone here but we are holding back many SGT s elsewhere. Are these MOS s really that tough? I believe some are but for the most part we have a lot of capable NCO's and SPC P who are capable.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
You would think, as much education politicians and upper leadership have, they would know enough about History to avoid this situation. But, the current political landscape, they have the Pentagon they want, a bunch of yes men who think the art of war can be done by counting beans or making rules that are completely insane. After WW1 the military was drawn down to a point where they were combat ineffective by the time WW2 broke out. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and invaded Philippines we were using vintage equipment that was obsolete. We had our asses handed to us. After WW2, we down sized again, and N Korea rolled tanks, and we had Task Force Smith, and the blood bath of the Pusan Perimeter. Vietnam, the politicians and the media tied our hands in Vietnam. We were not allowed to pursue the enemy into neighboring countries. General Giap, of the North Vietnamese Army even stated that if we would have pursued them into Cambodia and Laos we could have won the war in Vietnam and decimated their ranks further, to the point they would have been ineffective as a force. The commanders who saw combat in Vietnam, saw the effects of weak upper leadership and the media, gave us success in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War. Then we went back to the weak upper leadership, and a Kinder Gentler Army. Again politics were involved. The peaceniks are in full force, our upper leadership is for shit, more worried about tattoos and PT belts in a combat zone than actually getting the mission accomplished. The media has run amuck with portraying soldiers as being all bad, and those poor people in the Taliban and ISIS. Schwartzkauph and Powell had it right, keep the media away. And let soldiers do their jobs
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I see what the MG was speaking of, but I don't believe it completely. The Army is never "broken" but is a state of disarray. Yes if you loose NCO's, you're loosing a valuable resource, but that opens a path for that junior troop to show he can lead the way. So they have to be given that chance. Loosing the numbers we are is what it is, and I don't think any president change can fix that, nor can Congress. In regards to the modernization of items, we don't effectively use most of what we have. MRAPS were great in Afghanistan, but are limited in other roles. Tanks are much the same way. The wars we fought before aren't the wars we're fighting now. No uniforms, no real front lines, no clear cut and defined enemy. These are the battles of the future IMO. And to combat that military leaders need to be proactive in what they deem nessicary for the mission vs what would look cool to have. Our civilian leaders need to understand real threats, listen to those in the know, and adjust accordingly with the fiscal strings to support our mission along with supporting their states/districts. But MY Army will NEVER be broken. Not in my lifetime or anyone that can read this posts lifetime.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs, No Sir! The Army is not broken. What's broken is our lack of leadership. The corruption in Washington, the cowards in Washington, the lack of support for our Military forces. If I worked for a company run like Washington is, I would quit and find me another job. I'll never leave America. I've seen too much blood and guts shed for our honor, even if the liberals think it's unnecessary to go to war. It's not the Military's fault we're labelled like that. It's our freaking governments fault. As our presidents term is ending, I'm sick and tired of those damned labels being given to our armed forces. Give us some slack in the leash and we'll show America we're not broken.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I disagree that the Army or any other branch is "broken", but if you want to discuss the leadership at the DOD and up, now that is another matter.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The Army isn't broken. The electorate is broken. They are electing politicians who promise to deliver the pork. And you know who loses in this game of "stealing from Peter to pay Paul, don't you? Yes, it's very shortsighted...
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - I'm not a fan of the popular vote. Once upon a time the parties selected their respective candidates from their pool of party leaders. The ones who could raise money, lead others, set the agenda (act like executives) fought it out in smoke-filled backrooms. Thus the electorate was presented with the best choices that each party had to offer. Now We the People select the candidates by popular vote. How's that been working out for us? I can remember choices like Truman vs Dewey, Eisenhower vs Stevenson, Nixon vs Kennedy, Johnson vs Goldwater. (Yes, I'm that old) Those were good choices. Then we started getting candidates like McGovern, Carter, Bush, Dole, Clinton, Obama (Reagan was the only good one to come out of the popular vote). Anyone who has raised children should understand the problem. Do you tell your children eat your vegetables or go to your room? Of course not. They'll choose the room. That's where their toys are. No, you give them better choices - Eat your peas or your carrots. Either choice is acceptable. Today, we're offering our children (the electorate) choices like go to your room and play or eat ice cream. Dumb...
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CPT Jack Durish I respect your views, so are you saying let's keep the Electorate Vote but overhaul it in some way?
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - At the very least, I would like to see the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the continuation of the Electoral College, and the return to selection of Presidential candidates by each party's leaders rather than popular vote in the primaries. (That system seems to have provided us with better choices)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
