General Binford Peay, who served as CENTCOM commander prior to General Anthony Zinni, has commentary up in yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch that is worth reading. General Peay is currently serving as VMI’s 14th superintendent.
All services are important. But at the end of the day the nation requires and should demand a much larger . . . Army. A full-spectrum force backed up with large tiered reserves of different readiness levels.A total Army that has the capabilities to fight simultaneously at the high-, mid-, and low-end of the spectrum against both modernized and asymmetrical low intensity threats . . . .
WHAT ARE our national values and responsibilities in this world order? Three points: First, the volunteer force was never envisioned to fight a long war. As a result we now rotate our active . . . forces at one year deployed and one to one and a quarter years at home station.
For the Army Reserve it would be one [year deployed] to four (or five) years [at home station] and for the Army National Guard one [year deployed] to six years [at home station]. No organization can sustain that pace for a long war.
Today, over two-thirds of the Army’s active and reserve operating forces, at home, are unready. We have over-relied on technology and air power as a replacement for land power. Our history is replete with examples of adventurism by adversaries when we reduce our national defense posture . . . .
Today, the nation spends less than 4 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, and allocates 24 percent of its defense spending to the Army. We should commit greater than 6 percent of the GDP [to defense]. In fact, the average from 1975-1994 as we rebuilt the Army after Vietnam was 5.8 percent of the GDP — which, I add, resulted in winning the Cold War arguably without firing a shot.
The volunteer force and end-strength of the Army should be expanded to 650,000 from its approximately 500,000 . . . . The Army is simply not large enough to regenerate and refresh itself to be ready and professional . .
Could not agree more on defense spending.
Read the whole thing.
The reason we are in the situation we are in now with the Army is thanks to guys like Gen Peay and Gen Shinseki. While other Services were moving to an expeditionary mindset, they Army stayed the course with the garrison mindset and shifted all the non-sexy but critical support jobs to the RC and ArNG. However, even if the CS/CSS issue were solved instantly, the Army tooth-to-tail problem would still plague us. The size of the Army is appropriate (maybe a modest increase in the short term) for our volunteer force and budget, we just need a better balance of trigger pullers to support!
I hate to question the Sup’, but after reading this–
“For the Army Reserve it would be one [year deployed] to four (or five) years [at home station] and for the Army National Guard one [year deployed] to six years [at home station]. No organization can sustain that pace for a long war.”
I have to ask, why not?
I’m not in the force structure business, but one year out and three or four at home doesn’t sound unsustainable. In fact it sounds like a good plan. Someone please tell me where I’m going wrong.
He is right that we need to spend a little more.
P,
The point you don’t get is the one I was trying to make, but obviously didn’t make clear. The CS/CSS units in the RC and ArNG only go over 1 for every 4 home but the BCTs that rely on them are doing the 1 for 1 trick. Unless you have 4 times as many support units you run out of shiltz around the 3 year point.
Sluggo, the majority of the CS/CSS units have always been in the Reserve. The Guard maintained combat formations AND their appropriate support formations (and still do). Shinseki or Peay had very little, if anything, to do with that.
The problem with the conceived “Brigade Unit cycles” are the difference between numbers and people. The Army does not have the people to fully man the Brigades it has on paper (and this goes for the Guard as well… the Reserves have no maneuver Brigades). So, this means that, even if say, the 4th BDE 101st Airborne Div deploys once every three or four years, the actual SOLDIERS deploying with that Brigade may have just come over from say, 2nd BDE 10th Mountain, which may have finished a deployment the year prior. So, even though the cycle looks good on paper, the reality for the individual soldiers is MUCH different.
My PSYOP detachment supported an active-duty brigade. Guys there were receiving their orders for follow-on units when they got back to their home station. Some were being told to expect a deployment to Afghanistan or Iraq within a year of them going to their new units.
This is the issue not being addressed. This is what’s hurting readiness. The numbers are not there to support the Brigades and their cycles. It not only hurts the soldiers (who are basically doing year-long rotations every other year or two), but what happens if the balloon goes up in another part of the world? We essentially have “empty” Brigades sitting at home not able to handle a crisis.
I don’t know if I entirely agree on defense spending. There is still much waste in the defense budget, largely a result of pork-barreling and politics. Hey, it’s the American way.
What I am upset about is the failure of the administration to adequately mobilize the country for this fight. They are quick to equate the war with say, WW2, but they will not ask the American people to act that way (unless it’s to get on board with their opinions). Where are the calls for service? Where are is rationing? Why aren’t the American people asked to make sacrifices?
screw that Joel. If the Reagan years taught us anything, it’s that ideological wars can be won with lots and lots of defense spending.
I agree with the need for more resources. But I’m not so sure that the Army is the place to put them.
First, because the AF, and even more the Navy, will be bearing the brunt of future operations. I don’t think the American public will be supportive of further ground operations for a very, very long time. Ground combat, particularly counterinsurgency, minimizes our relative superiority. Let’s face it, the foe is willing to mix it up on the ground. They don’t even TRY to meet us in the air or at sea. Public sentiment will be very strong to engage in smash-and-leave operations rather than occupations.
Second, the Navy and AF have been eating their hats the last fifteen years. The Army has done relatively better, particularly since they are getting the lion’s share of operations funding for Iraq. The Navy, in particular, is l
Third, because if you ARE going to engage in this sort of counterinsurgency operations,
there is a strong argument that the Marine Corps does it much better. MOOTW, including counterinsurgency, is a traditional Marine area of expertise.
Finally, we MUST remember that the next war will NOT be like the last war. To be honest, that’s what worries me the most about things. We seem to be fixated on being able to fight the Iraqi insurgency perfectly…..and forgetting that the next war will probably look totally different. Flexibility and adaptability are essential.
sluggo:
yep, i think i misconstrued your comment. i was looking back at my Marine Corps experience, where we rotate on deployments as MAGTFs, the grunts, the airwingers, the CSS guys, all at once.
Yeah John, massive spending wins when you’re competing against another country. Did it ever occur to you that maybe al-Qaeda is trying to do to us what we did to the Russkies?
Think about it… I mean, in relative terms, how expensive was the 9-11 attack? I’d gander to say in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How many billions (maybe even trillions) of dollars have we already spent in the GWOT? So do we really want to get in a “spending war” with these guys? We’d lose. Armored vehicles costing HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars are being DESTROYED by IED’s costing thousands of dollars. How much money does it cost to train and equip three or four American soldiers killed by an inexpensive suicide car-bomber?
You can’t spend more than a terrorist and expect to win. And you sure can’t do it right now. Again, the country is not mobilized for war and we cannot sustain massive defense budgets.
Yes, I would agree the Marines are more effective than the Army in the realm of CI (and this is because of the Marines’ inherent flexibility and, more importantly I believe, they have the ability to truly conduct critical self-analysis and implement lessons learned far more quickly than the Army), but can they realistically sustain the kinds of commitments we’re seeing now? No. The Army is the large land force of the United States and, like it or not, are going to have the bear the brunt of this war. Furthermore, like it or not, the Reserves/Guard are going to also bear a sizable chunk of that commitment as well. But, see my comments above, this long-term commitment is going to have to be reduced soon.
Right now the Navy has no real adversary on the ocean (save for the Chinese, but we’re not at war with them) and the Air Force is uncontested in the skies. Granted, we need to keep developing new airframes and ships, but we don’t need to dedicate large portions of the defense budget to the Navy or Air Force. We don’t need a 800-ship Navy or a 10,000-plane Air Force.
I just want a bigger paycheck and more purty fighter jets to look at it.
What this country needs, for more than mere military readiness, is to bring back the draft. I would support a system similar to Israel’s, i.e., all men and women. My draft age son disagrees. But seeing what a “college” education (indoctrination) has done for/to him I can’t think of anything better for his development into a good citizen than military service.
No draft. I don’t want an unwilling jag-off with a weapon anywhere near me. I saw the last of the Vietnam era draftee Marines leaving. Most were good men who did a great job, but the rest…
I’d rather go to war with volunteer Boy Scouts and old guys like me.
A draft right now would be politicaly explosive. Maybe a prowar dem pres could pull it off, if there ever is such a thing.
However in general, I think a lot of boys would learn a lot that would help them in life if there was something like 2 years mandatory military service. I think it would change the minds of a generation for the better, and as a result the country. When more serve, and it is not ‘somebody else’s problem’, then you might see more willingness for defense spending and maybe even a reprioritization from socialistic programs as they see how things are abroad.
And as for how soon such a recruit should hold a weapon would seem to depend on the change of attitude exhibited through training. Attitude readjustment was I thought a military specialty.
MarkD,
Your point is well taken but I submit that it is no mere accident of evolution that values such as honor, duty, courage, liberty, truth, and the like appeared in the development of sentient life on this planet. It is OUR duty to perpetuate these values enshrined by our brilliant founders to the best of our ability. As it is right now in our society these are denigrated, sublimated to the multiculti political correct pablum perpetrated on the culture by the so called education establishment assisted by their cohorts in the mass “dumb down” media. What better extant institution to right these wrongs than our military establishment. It ain’t perfect, I admit, but people that come out of it and enter into the mainstream of American life are better for it and we all benefit therefrom.
As a Vietnam vet I too have seen/experienced service with volunteers and draftees. I was a volunteer. Anecdotally I would submit that both classes benefited equally from their service. I wonder as I write this how many of the “Swift Boat” vets/supporters were draftees.
I agree with AnotherOpinion.
Thanks.
“I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don’t think any nation or people has the right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what the name is. We have had the draft now for twenty years and I think it is shameful. If a country can’t save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say let the damned thing go down the drain.”
Robert Heinlein (quoted in 1960)
Science Fiction Author
and Veteran