This article is important but meaningless. Pure smoke!
The Army has the authority to increase their end strength by another 42,000 soldiers right now. They cannot do it. The recruits are just not there.
uw
Article Launched: 08/05/2005 01:00:00 AM
guest commentary
It's critical to boost military
Depletions in Army demand significant increase in strength
U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo.
Washington, D.C.
Back-to-back deployments in Iraq, demoralizing stop-loss orders, and unpredictable but potentially necessary missions elsewhere around the globe threaten to break our all-volunteer Army. In fact, a scholar with the respected Center for Strategic and International Studies has called this problem "the elephant sitting in the room" that we need to address "at the highest levels of government."
It is not news that our military is strained. Recruitment numbers were slightly better in June, but overall the Army is still 15 percent under its goal. Major General Michael D. Rochelle, the chief of Army Recruiting Command, has acknowledged that we are facing "the most challenging conditions we have seen in recruiting in my 33 years."
The time has come for Congress to take the advice of retired generals, young combat officers and military experts who recommend a significant increase in the Army's end strength.
A recent report by the RAND Corp.'s Arroyo Center, the Army's research institute, points out that combat units are now spending one of two years deployed overseas (instead of the one of three years as specified in deployment guidelines), which negatively affects recruiting and leaves little time for soldiers to get trained in new skills.
Recruiting problems continue despite increases in recruiters, record-level bonuses, expensive television ads and lowered recruiting standards. Alarmingly, the Army has loosened educational requirements and stopped dismissing new recruits for drug abuse, alcohol and even poor fitness.
These steps may help in the short term, but there is a deepening concern that our current force requirements cannot be sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan without depleting our reserves and diminishing our capacity to meet other global threats.
Simply put, our Army is not big enough to do all the jobs we are asking it to do.
Adjustments must be made, either in the number of missions or in the size of the Army. In the post-Sept. 11 security landscape, we must have a clear understanding of anti-insurgency warfare as well as more conventional threats. The Pentagon has a new process underway to review these questions, but in the meantime, the Bush administration's lack of foresight in Iraq has left us with an immediate problem that cannot be ignored: Our troops are overstretched. Last year, nine of the Army's 10 divisions were deployed to, preparing to deploy to, or were returning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moreover, in a concern echoed recently by the nation's governors, we continue to rely too heavily on our National Guard and Reserve. In Iraq, they make up 40 percent of the boots on the ground. Guard members and reservists, who often serve back home as first responders, police, firefighters and paramedics, need to be in their communities, protecting the homefront.
I have introduced legislation with California Rep. Ellen Tauscher to increase the size of the U.S. Army by 80,000 troops. Without this legislation, we risk asking too much of our men and women in uniform who have performed so courageously and sacrificed so much in their service to this country.
This is not about increasing troops so that we can deploy more soldiers in Iraq. Nor is it a substitute for needed reforms in the way our military prepares for the challenges of insurgency warfare in the 21st century. Rather, this is about rebuilding the strength of the U.S. Army.
Increasing the end-strength of our Army will give us flexibility to rotate units out of combat on a more frequent timetable, potentially aiding in recruitment and retention. Additional units would also end stop-loss orders, which would allow us to rely less on our citizen soldiers and let them return home to their families.
Getting the Army back on stable footing won't happen overnight. We must start this process now, since future engagements are likely and allies are scarce.
I did not serve in the military, but as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have grown to greatly admire those who do. Returning soldiers at Fort Carson will tell you that we have no shortage of brave and brilliant men and women in uniform. We owe it to these soldiers and our nation's future to ensure a strong and effective U.S. Army.
Rep. Mark E. Udall represents Colorado's 2nd Congressional District. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
|
