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.
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 40
Sir, the article tells the historical truth with some pointed exaggeration. We go through cycles of war, post-war and re-readiness similar to our own training cycles - execute-AAR-plan. Personnel drawdowns and aging equipment are nothing new and I'm not sure how you recover the deficits.
It costs money to mobilize and fight - can't be doing the amount of R&D necessary for the next generation systems with troops on the battlefield. Then again, we did see the emergence of quite a few advances in IED survivable vehicles and IED detecting/defeating technologies since 9/11 introduced onto the battlefield. The DoD procurement process alone is a bear that needs overhauling. If anyone has ever seen "The Pentagon Wars" It's not that far from the truth. The way the system works and the length of time it takes to go from inception to the battlefield allows for major battlefield systems like the Abrams & Bradley to be outdated when they finally makes it to the troops. Then again, B52s are still flying. Each time we go through these phases, the face of warfare also changes and the doctrine writers are running out of ink just to keep up. The Fulda gap scenario, OOTWA, desert warfare, unmanned vehicles and drones - how things change.
Now from the troop perspective - nothing new either, You wind down from a war you drop your troop strength. This last 10 years has been unprecedented with the number of deployments - probably equal to the amount of time WWII soldiers spent in Europe and Asia when all totaled up. Being in a combat zone, being deployed and redeployed takes it's toll mentally and physically on all soldiers. It's no wonder that SMs are "voting with their feet" With no draft or mandatory service obligation, how is the country expected to make up the loss - though a 40,000 troop drawdown would seem to cover that to some degree. True we tend to lose those in the most needed positions with the most institutional knowledge - our NCOs and company grade officers, but can you blame them? Most have 2 or more deployments and the future will bring more of the same. They've done their time in a war that isn't resolving much. The enemy is not surrendering and no one is drawing lines on maps to come to a cessation of combat.
Anyways, my 2 cents.
It costs money to mobilize and fight - can't be doing the amount of R&D necessary for the next generation systems with troops on the battlefield. Then again, we did see the emergence of quite a few advances in IED survivable vehicles and IED detecting/defeating technologies since 9/11 introduced onto the battlefield. The DoD procurement process alone is a bear that needs overhauling. If anyone has ever seen "The Pentagon Wars" It's not that far from the truth. The way the system works and the length of time it takes to go from inception to the battlefield allows for major battlefield systems like the Abrams & Bradley to be outdated when they finally makes it to the troops. Then again, B52s are still flying. Each time we go through these phases, the face of warfare also changes and the doctrine writers are running out of ink just to keep up. The Fulda gap scenario, OOTWA, desert warfare, unmanned vehicles and drones - how things change.
Now from the troop perspective - nothing new either, You wind down from a war you drop your troop strength. This last 10 years has been unprecedented with the number of deployments - probably equal to the amount of time WWII soldiers spent in Europe and Asia when all totaled up. Being in a combat zone, being deployed and redeployed takes it's toll mentally and physically on all soldiers. It's no wonder that SMs are "voting with their feet" With no draft or mandatory service obligation, how is the country expected to make up the loss - though a 40,000 troop drawdown would seem to cover that to some degree. True we tend to lose those in the most needed positions with the most institutional knowledge - our NCOs and company grade officers, but can you blame them? Most have 2 or more deployments and the future will bring more of the same. They've done their time in a war that isn't resolving much. The enemy is not surrendering and no one is drawing lines on maps to come to a cessation of combat.
Anyways, my 2 cents.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Great insight and breakdown between the equipment side of the house and manning the force. The "think tank" gurus are always working these pieces, but the budgeting, procurement, and fielding take a long time, unless there is an immediate need to save lives. Like you said, look at the changes in the battle against the IEDs and the changes that were implemented in equipment, redesign, detection, and add-ons to save lives. We need to look at all equipment that way for future wars and lives and use the same amount of urgency in the process. I'm afraid we are taking a slow process during the draw down period that will bit us once again, especially when the "War on Terrorism" in my opinion is still raging on. We have just decided to take a back seat (sort of). We are still engaging on bombing runs, but we all know that will only do so much. Honestly, I don't know all the ins and out of how these things get resolved in the Pentagon. I've only been exposed to a small portion of the palnning cycles and taken two tours in the past. There are a lot of RP experts out here on RP that have been involved in the process and understand it much better.
(1)
(0)
The spirit i see in the young troops of today indicates to me that the military is not broken,only the politics concerning it.I have witnessed in my lifetime the ups and downs of the attitude of the military and attitudes toward the military, but the spirit of the military is still there.
(1)
(0)
I felt young leaders, especially officers, were voting with their feet in 2003. I am sure the spirit of our Soldiers will weather this but definitely have some fears for the future of my Army.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
SFC Joseph Weber We will weather this like we always have. There will always be bumps in the road or potholes that need to filled in. but we will never get knocked off that road permanently. The Spirit of our young men and women is way to great!
(2)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs I realize that we can do things better and I get that some investments have not been made in main battle tanks and CAS aircraft, but these are matters of leadership. The Army is not broken, we are smaller and have less capability but we have many combat veterans and with permission by the CnC and some leadership we will crush ISIS.
I have four children, I will be proud for any of them to join any of the military services. I have faith that we, Americans, do the right thing. It make take more time than we hope for but we eventually do the right thing.
I have four children, I will be proud for any of them to join any of the military services. I have faith that we, Americans, do the right thing. It make take more time than we hope for but we eventually do the right thing.
(1)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
LTC John Shaw Thanks for your input. It is always valued. I feel the same way you do. I just thought the article pointed out some similarties over time. I think we will bounce back like we always do with the right leadership at the helm!
(1)
(0)
Intersting read, but I think the Army will adapt and overcome obstacles it faces. It won't be easy that is for sure. But the will of the American fighting man or women is never broken The organization might be but not the individual's.
(1)
(0)
It's a good article, but there is A LOT of nostalgia tinting in it. One example that stuck with me was:
"Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train;"
That assertion shows that emotion may be clouding things. Soldiers stay for as many reasons as there are soldiers. Some do it for duty, some for family, some because they enjoy the People, and yes some do it to train in the field, but to make a definitive statement like the above is just not true (by omission).
Though I agree the Army is going to take some especially hard hits over the coming years because of the drawdown, I don't think it will break it. I don't think something as simple as personnel shortfalls, or reduction in resources could break the Army. I think this article highlights that the author has transitioned from hope to despair.
"Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train;"
That assertion shows that emotion may be clouding things. Soldiers stay for as many reasons as there are soldiers. Some do it for duty, some for family, some because they enjoy the People, and yes some do it to train in the field, but to make a definitive statement like the above is just not true (by omission).
Though I agree the Army is going to take some especially hard hits over the coming years because of the drawdown, I don't think it will break it. I don't think something as simple as personnel shortfalls, or reduction in resources could break the Army. I think this article highlights that the author has transitioned from hope to despair.
(1)
(0)
Most are grateful that someone else is willing to serve so they don't have to...this is where the basic problem is. For those who do not give back, taking is all they know. For example, the current political quagmire...I believe You should have some "Service" time , not necessarily Military, in your background. Quite possibly, there are Veteran who would make productive, focused, and engaged politicians, as well.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next