ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors. Whenever news breaks, Hardblogger will break it down, so check in often.

Hardball with Chris Matthews airs weeknights on MSNBC.



Tour length isn't the problem

Posted: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:00 AM by Hardball

Adjusting combat tour length doesn’t solve the problem

Secretary of Defense of Gates announced Wednesday that he is extending the combat tour length for active duty U.S. Army soldiers from the standard 12 months to 15 months, with the commitment that the period between combat rotations will be 12 months.  This announcement does not affect the reserve components of the Army – the Reserves and National Guard – nor does it affect the length of deployment for the U.S. Marines, currently seven months.

While that sounds like it will provide more troops for the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, in reality many of the troops are extended for that extra three months anyway.  In the past, that was the most effective way to plus up the number of troops: maintain the inbound schedule but retain units about to rotate home an extra three months.  In effect, this formalizes the longer tour length that has been imposed on many of the soldiers who have served and are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The objective is to provide soldiers at least 12 months between combat tours, and at the same time provide higher levels of troops in the region.  It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.  It will work in the short term, but at some point, you run out of soldiers. 

The problem is not the tour length; it’s the fact that we do not have a sufficient number of soldiers – or Marines for that matter – to maintain the scale and pace of operations, the “ops tempo,” currently assigned to the armed forces.

Let’s be clear about our armed forces.  Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works.  We have fielded the best-trained and best-equipped military in our history.  At the end of the Cold War, we drew our forces down to what are now unacceptable levels.  The problem is that there are not enough of them. 

There are proposals to increase the size of the land component, the Army and Marines, by as much as 100,000 troops to supplement the existing 500,000 plus troops.  That’s the minimum that is required if we are going to maintain presence in the world’s hot spots – right now that is Iraq and Afghanistan – and be prepared to defend our interests around the world wherever challenged.  That challenge might come elsewhere in the Middle East – Iran comes to mind – or in Korea, Taiwan, or the Horn of Africa.  We must be ready to act when needed, not worry about raising the required numbers after the crisis presents itself.  When we decide that a deployment of U.S. forces is required, we need to send them in numbers that indicate we mean business.

We can’t do that now.  On at least one occasion in the last year, the Pentagon was forced to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division’s “ready brigade” to Iraq.  This is the unit that is supposed to be on call to respond to a crisis anywhere on a moment’s notice.  It’s hard to do that when deployed to Iraq.

The interests of a nation of 300 million people can hardly be defended by one half of one percent of the population.  We spend about four percent of GDP on defense.  In today’s world, that’s not enough.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Capable leaders offer solutions when they point out problems. How did you make it to Lt. Colonel????

James O. H. Niermann Jr., former enlisted, Conroe Tx (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:15 PM)

Gee, wasn't it one of John Kerry's plans to increase the number of troops by 100k? I take it you supported him on that one? Bush mismanagment has put a deadline on the war, its coming sooner than that proposed by the Dems, it comes when we run out of troops. If a foreign power had done as much damage to our defences as Bush we would nuke them.

born_7-4 (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:18 PM)

With an estimate by the Rand institute that put the forces required to pacify a country the size of Iraq at half a million troops, another 100,000 on over all troop strength is not going to make a significant difference. Low intensity conflicts can go on for decades, simply because the cost to equip and maintian low grade forces is nominal compared to that required by our military. The Bradley IFV which our infantry rides in costs upwards of $3,000,000. That same 3 million can equip hundreds of not thousands of low intensity fighters with rifles, RPGs and mortars., and give them mobility in pickup trucks.

Greg K, Dallas TX (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:18 PM)

It should be more than enough, when compared to what others spend. It's how it is spent and the mission objectives that are killing us and the world.

charles holland, Sarasota, Fl. (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:24 PM)

I think you're correct in saying we are in need of a larger military. As the need to increase the overall size of our forces becomes clear, it is also worth noting that John Kerry debated the Bush/Rumsfeld doctorine on exactly that point during the 2004 Presidential Campaign. The Bush doctorine, to my knowledge, has been to focus on technology in order to insure a lean high-tech Military. Kerry, by contrast, spoke that our greatest need was to increase the number armed forces recruits. While I still support Bush as the only leader with the courage to stand up to emerging threats, it pains me to say Kerry was most likely right on this point. The simple fact, as you have pointed out, is we do not have the numbers we need to respond to situations all over the world. All of the technology in the world won't save you when you don't have the people to use it. As for our overall defense spending, I agree that we need to increase it. My question is this... would the Democrats break with their traditional anti-defense stance to approve increased funding for the Military? This would be nessessary to increase our numbers and they have a long history of voting against any and all defense measures.

Stephen Pazian (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:30 PM)

"We spend about four percent of GDP on defense. In today’s world, that’s not enough." If we weren't fighting a war based on lies (WMD) 4% would be too much.

Tom Hurt, Miami, Fl (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:36 PM)

We would have enough soldiers if the President withdrew them from Iraq. Even if he was right and withdrawing troops there means we would have to fight terrorists here, we've got lots of police and NRA supporters who could do the job. Fewer Americans would die, and they all wouldn't be army. It would spread the risk. But the odds are that the President is wrong about them following us, as he was wrong about every other thing he said or did about Iraq, (I know, I know, he has to be right sometime) then we will all be safer.

Albert K. Lawler Furlong PA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:37 PM)

The obvious alternative is to re-think our arrogant interventionist approach to foreign relations, which is clearly not working. More troops is like putting gasoline on the fire: we'd just generate more ill will, more resistance and eventually more terrorism. I'm not questioning our country's desire to "do good" on the world stage, but rather every detail of how we approach it. Ultimately, what's not working is that we think that our lifestyle and values are the best and should be shared by others who don't want them. As a side effect of that, working to maintain our lifestyle and values here at home generates repercussions as we try to make the rest of the world into our guaranteed resource suppliers and cheap manufacturing havens. Instead, if we formed our foreign relations about doing what's best for the local population by their own standards - and staying out if that isn't easily determined - we'd be far better off. We could start by working to assure the necessities of water, food, and housing as well as living wages and human rights for people by working to support them on a grass-roots basis. Imagine how far the good will we'd generate from this approach would take us, as opposed to generating armed resistance wherever we go? Force simply isn't the answer anymore, except in cases where it comes from the moral authority of agreement from a true majority of world goverments, backed by in-kind committments of each participant, instead of a fake "coalition" that is a front for our own interests.

Eric Novak, Mountain View, CA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:39 PM)

It would not be necessary to have all these people if this country hadn't decided to engage in a war that was based on deceptions. Unless you reinstate the draft, no way are you going to get any meaningful number of new people. Who the hell in their right mind would sign up for the lunacy we have going on now? I can imagine myself thinking as a young person, "OK, first of all, the war wasn't necessary. Secondly, it was handled so incompentently that there is no salvaging it, and thirdly, when I come back they won't give me proper medical or psychological treatment. GOOD DEAL! Where do I sign?" You'd have to be pretty damn dim

Peggy Greensboro NC (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:39 PM)

While I rarely agree with anything Francona says ,he is absolutely correct that out armed forces are way too low`.I think they should be susbstantially in excess of what even he says is the minmimum. Where I disagree witht him is that the voluntary army works.It may work in terms of the quality of the fighting force that we turn out but the intangible consequences on the american public of not having a draft have seriously harmed this country.Bush would not have been able to continue this war if the publics sons and daughters were being asked to fight it.No sane person would argue that we are not woefully understaffed militarily or that the generals in IRAQ really belive thet they can do the job with the troops we have there.The reason there is not a draft is that Bush knows he never had gotten it through and to request more troops because they are needed and then failed to obtain would have meant the necessity of with drawing. We have taken the easy way out by disbanding the draft because unfortunately most of us just dont give a damn if it doesnt have the possibility of affecting our children.That is why the politicians and generals are aginst the draft.They want the ability to fatten the defense budget and escape accountablity for the miserable way in which they have monuted this campaign in IRAQ.The troops in Iraq have not let us down but the professional military machine certainly has. Now you know why a professional military man like Francona,who has been an apologist for this war and the military's performance for a long time,asserts that the number of our armed forces is too low but doesnt advocate the obvious...a draft.He wants his toy troops without the accountability that would result when parents send their sons off to war and demand that their genrals produce or be replaced.That makes Francona uncomfortable.He should be.

david,baltimre,md (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:46 PM)

Please tell me how you are going to get more men when you cant make the quotas now. They have lower the standards again and again.A nation of over three hundred million and we expect a force of few hundred thousand to do are fighting is pretty sad. The president says we are at war so if we are at war were are the men to fight it. I was in Vietnam and I tell you had almost a year in country when are outfit got extended. I saw one good soldier sit down on the ground and start to cry. The day after Pearl Harbor thousands of men joined up to fight. This is a joke what is happening now

Peter Ernst (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:47 PM)

Instead of increasing the size of the US military, why not admit that the US adventure in Iraq is a lost cause and withdraw? Regarding your idea of increasing the size of the US military, why not withdraw American soldiers from the 170+ countries where they are stationed and cut the defense budget to the bone?

David Temsike, Jackson Heights, NY (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:48 PM)

Well, Colonel, Just where are we supposed to get the men for these larger forces? Recruiting quotas don't seem to be getting filled. And we're not about to institute a draft abscent a direct threat to U.S. And for some reason, we don't accept older folks into the Guard who could do the non-combatant work, particularly at home. Some of them would surely be fit enough and willing to serve.

Sam Shumate (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:48 PM)

The quality, not just the quantity, of potential soldiers is a huge problem. Recruiters, to meet their quotas, have signed up recruits with criminal records, less-than-stellar high school records, or who are high school dropouts. The result has been scandals like Abu Gharaib, the rape and murder of the young Iraqi girl and her family, and the staged murder of the Iraqi civilian, because the soldiers killed him when they failed to find their "target." Recruiters have often promised potential soldiers money for their college educations, enlistment bonuses, job training, and anything else to get more people to sign up. It's hard to consider the military as a potential career, and to be willing to go anywhere you're needed, when scandals, poor pay to soldiers and their families, extended tours of duty, and inadequate health care in local VA hospitals for soldiers and veterans are part of the package.

Wendy King (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:53 PM)

What the colonel says here is correct! And before anyone starts rambling on about President Bush and the war and spewing all their political gas…they need to take a deep breath and look at things objectively. This is NOT about politics or just about Iraq…this is about National Security. As an officer of 21 years and a Masters student of National Security Affairs, this is no easy problem. We need a bigger military (remember, we are not even engaged in several places that could go hot tomorrow) and yet ‘growing one’ is not something that happens overnight. It costs money and takes time…and it takes a spirit of service that is lacking today. As an officer, I dread the idea of taking care of belligerents forced into service by a draft…unfortunately, most of the younger generation does not have a sense of service…they are too busy with Reality TV and partying and worrying about their OWN rights, instead of the rights of others. Those of the younger generation that do put ‘service before self’ are too few and far between (God Bless everyone of them). Keep in mind, this country not only needs military personnel, but also people who are doctors and engineers and civil service types that are willing to work for next to nothing to make the lives of others better…nation building is not for the uniformed only! In fact, there are those that could argue well that nation building SHOULD not be the job of the unformed military at all. So before you are ready to knock what the Colonel says…before you are ready to start rambling on about the President and Iraq, look in the mirror!! If you see someone that has not served others and does little more than to flame the world from behind the safety of your little computer, then I might suggest your opinion does not count for much. Close your mouth and open your ears and eyes. Serve someone else (military or otherwise)…earn your right to debate. It might startle you how good it feels to be part of the solution…instead part of the problem.

Daniel, San Diego, CA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:53 PM)

The U.S. now has roughly half the entire world's military expenditures, even though it has only around 25% of world GDP and about 6% of world population. How sustainable is that? Look what happened to Britain and their empire; the world became too big and Britain too small to hold it together. The U.S. needs to re-examine roles and priorities. We've long stayed out of places in Africa, Central Asia, Burma and elsewhere with brutal regimes but with no oil or ability to threaten U.S. security. Trying to claim humanitarian motives (after WMD and the al-Qaeda link fell apart) in Iraq against a track record elsewhere like that rings hollow with many people. And the Bush record on diplomacy is so abysmal as to cast doubt over whether they even believe in the concept. The U.S. will need a more consistent policy that matches resources to where they're needed, as well as better relations that can build real coalitions and get other countries and multi-national forces involved.

Rusty C., Alpharetta, GA (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:55 PM)

I agree with what you've said. The 15 month deployment has actually been the standard since the beginning of the war. In 2004, the 1st Armored Division thought it was heading home when it was turned around at the Kuwait border at the 12 month mark to finish out a 15 month rotation.

Rob Barnes, Patterson, NY (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:57 PM)

This is what we get when we have a bunch of Vietnam era draft dodgers with no international experience running our country. I hope like heck we get someone with real in-the- field military experience (a war/campaign or two) and some international experience (lived overseas, not went to the major cities in Europe for vacation once and can only speak English) to throw their hat in the ring to run for President in 2008 AND people have enough sense to vote for them or we as a nation are going to be up a creek even more that we are now. I will have to give Gates some credit though, he is the first one in this administration to understand that we have a seriuos problem here, but he cannot fix it all by himself. Posted by: A Vietnam Veteran, 2 combat tours, and lived in Brazil and Costa Rica for several months.

Victor Heacker, Canova Beach, Florida (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:04 PM)

instead of adding more people why dont we lift the rules of engagment , clear out the " bearded ones " intent on death and finish this thing up , decidley and quickly , and not worry about sending our own troops to prison for hurting an iraquis feelings my god man , lets kick butt and get home .

hartley (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:10 PM)

It isn't that our military spending is insufficient; the US outspends all the other major military powers combined. What we aren't doing is investing in the personnel and the tools they actually need. We buy weapons systems that would have done a great job during the Cold War, but not in this one. And above all, we need to ensure that there is a strategic reserve to respond when and where necessary -- something the Colonel rightly says we can't do.

Jeff Myhre, New York, NY (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:23 PM)

Colonel, I agree with your premise. We do not have enough troops in uniform. I totally disagree with your statement "Plain and simple, the all-volunteer force works." Colonel, with all due respect, if it was working, we wouldn't be needing to change it. In 1940 US population was 131 million not counting the 16 million of the Philipine Territory. By 1943 the US had 5.2 million in uniform and by the end of the war in 1945 we had over 8 million. Colonel, respectfully, we now do have 300 million in this country. Fielding an amry of 8 million should not be a problem. Deploy 5 million to Iraq to disarm that country and bring stability. That would give you a force ratio of 1 to 5. Better than in Japan and Germany at the end of the war. Deploy 1 million to Afghanistan to cover the eastern border of Iran and keep the pressure on Al Queda. Let Iran know there are six million American troops on its borders and ask them to play nice. Keep 1 million troops at home in training and border security and use as a force multiplier anywhere in the world if necessary. Still keep your current 1 million troop force stationed through out the world doing whatever it is they do. When our troops are finished in Iraq, ask if the Iranians really want to play. If not then finish our job in Afghanistan and come home. Teddy Roosevelt didn't say speak softly and carry a stick just big enough to make you think you can do the job. No Colonel he didn't. It's time the politicians and the military leaders stand up and do what is right not politically convenient. Sadly it doesn’t take much intelligence to see that they are not. Does anyone actually believe you can control a population of 25 to 27 million people with 150,000 troops? That is like saying two parents with ten thousand kids in a house of 500 rooms can keep the kids from burning down the house. Are you nuts? It would be easy if all of the kids were “good kids”, but from my understanding of the situation there are quite a few delinquents in the house. We need more parents. Colonel, the house is burning, the neighbors house is smoking and you want one more parent. Colonel it is well past time we had a draft, deployed the proper amount of troops to the region and ended this conflict.

Ed Chicago IL (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:37 PM)

when was the united states voted to be a police force for the world. i see no major countries with a large amounts of troops. and the death toll seems to be in the majority with american, are we along with our policy while giving large amounts of money to foriegn countries and other aids. where is all the support from the rest of the world. kinda makes you think who is in support of our country and its policies.

james brown kentucky (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:48 PM)

I am a soldier in the Army Reserve, more than likely going to be deployed in the coming months. I completely agree with your comments. My question is, why can't the marines stay for 15 months?

Ryan Campbell, Biddeford, Maine (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:49 PM)

Sir, Why not look even further, and Like George Catlett Marshall decide we need to get 5-7 million in the various uniforms again, to fight a World War like it is a World War. We are there. Turkey may dive in before we raise another 100,000.

TSgt Bob Bella Vista AR (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:51 PM)

Man, have you served in Iraq? Twelve months, particularly it ain't your first time, is bad enough. Fifteen? Unreal. Also, I'm a reservist who served each time in an active unit, having been "cross-levelled" into the unit. Will I go home after twelve months? Would I ever consider leaving my comrades behind three months early? You know the answer to that question. H*ll no! The problem is the tour lengths. Twelve months at a shot, twice now and possibly a third, IS the problem.

Larry Babin (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:58 PM)

I think that the entire issue of the privatization of Iraqi oil should be a predominate discussion. I have not heard word one about this. We have our multinational oil companies as the primary beneficiary, and why would Iraq want this? Their fields have always been under the control of the Iraqi state, and now it looks to the World that America is an aggressor Nation looking to take over the resources of another Country.

Ruth Jameson Eureka CA 95501 (Sent Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:04 PM)

I apologize for my ignorance, But , Really, has anyone listened to G bush lately? The man is falling to pieces because of his non-withering attitude that all he has said, and done, is righteous. To be so blind to the truth, to keep on a path of such self-destruction, not only to him, but to the USA. His total ignorance of the world about him is just so... Astounding.

D Mac (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:15 PM)

It is amazing the still going on whether we should be there, troop build up, cost, etc. The fact of the matter is we have commited to the cause and victory must occur. People state we don't need to be policing the world and that we need to spend time at home; when issues arrive on the world's door like Darfur, everyone has a different feeling. When things get tough or cost or take a little longer to complete, people find everyway to bicker. We cannot leave this part of the world in "no man's hands". We have to finish what we have started.

John Brasher, Knoxville, TN (Sent Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:16 PM)

We have amazing potential technology in the military, our air force is one of the most advanced on the planet. But we still have soldiers calling their families from the front lines to supply them with adequate body armor. Soldiers are spending their down time in a war zone spot welding metal sheets over their wimpy little Hum-vees. The M-16 is a freaking joke compared to the AK-47, jamming every time a speck of sand gets in the slide. The com equipment is criminally outdated, with only the best of the best (special forces and such) getting the really high tech gear. I'm so glad our gov't is spending BILLIONS of $$$ on missle defense when we are fighting an enemy who makes up bombs with manure from the family donkey and waste water from the gutter. By the way, when you go to war people have to die, that is by defintion war. We have fooled ourselves into thinking we can unman the front lines. Unless you are willing to fire the missles from 100's of miles away and not care who gets hit, there will always have to be armed men willing to KILL. Here's a few ideas to get out of Iraq. 1. REALLY invade and take over the country. Put Americans in charge and KILL any one who opposes us. 2. Drop bombs until nothing is left. 3. GET OUT NOW!!!!! Since 1 and 2 are way out of the question, sounds like three is the best way to do this. I'm not some lefty liberal, I was totally supportive of the war before it became a total fiasco. Let the terrorists come over here and we can teach them all about the 2nd amendment. Semper Fi

Stephanie, ventura ca (Sent Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:33 PM)

As a military wife, and a school teacher I wish that the media, and the government would look at what this is doing to our families. Sure there are those of you that will read this and say "well you are in the military what do you expect??" however, the time that the government is saying that my husband will be at home is untrue. My husband has been in the states since Christmas Eve 05. That is 17 months. During that time, we have been moved, and he has gone to 3 different schools and the field -totaling 11 months gone from our family. With another deployment coming in Aug (for 15 months) we are not able to spend any quality time together as a family. This will be his 3rd tour and it is so hard to tell my children (2 and 5) that Daddy is doing good in another country or that he is helping people, due to the negative pictures displayed through the media daily. I believe there is good taking place in Iraq, and that our soldiers are helping people over there. But at what cost? And, why should we be so hell bent on helping people that won't help themselves?

Missing my soldier , Fort Riley, Kansas (Sent Wednesday, May 02, 2007 2:28 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=138564


The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Authors:

Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs