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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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