Strained US Army relaxes new officer requirements

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

we have contracted housing on many post now which is a real hit/miss

I live in base housing and we just changed over to private management, what a huge poop sandwich! I'm not pleased one bit with the bite I took, the scam artists collect your full amount of housing allowance, (increasing your "rent" every time you get a raise too) then have the audacity to implement a slew of brainless rules which are too numerous to recall.
The stated goal is as soon as "every military family that wants one" has a unit, they can rent to civillians, and charge whatever rent they want. Therefore, I suspect that their plan is to drive out as many "limited rent" active duty members as they can with the poor management and crazy rules. That way they can get right to the real money.

 

[MarkDido]

From 1990 to 1998, active Army ranks were reduced from 770,000 to 495,000. After the cuts, the Army had 10 active combat divisions compared to the 18 it had at the start of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The following also were cut:
- 293,000 reservists;

- two reserve divisions;

- 20 Air Force and Navy air wings along with approximately 2,000 combat aircraft;

- 232 strategic bombers;

- 13 ballistic-missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear warheads on 232 missiles;

- 500 ICBMs;

- four aircraft carriers;

- 121 surface-combat vessels and attack submarines, plus all the support basing, transport and logistic access, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, helicopters, etc.

In the 80's under Reagan, we built up a 600 ship Navy capable of fighting major conflicts on 2 fronts at the same time. Due to the drawdowns and the "peace dividend" I think now we could probably fight 1 major engagement, and fight a smaller "delaying action" until the main force could be freed up.

If the Navy were more heavily committed over in the Middle East than we are now, what would happen if we suddenly had to engage in hostilities on the other side of the world? S. vs N. Korea? China/Taiwan, India/Pakistan?

Of all the things that Congress does with our tax dollars (NPR, Education, NEA, etc) The ONE thing that IS ennumerated in the Constitution is to "provide for the common defense" That should be the federal government's primary and over-riding responsibility to the country. Not funding every senator and congressman's private "pork barrel" projects for their constituents.

Increase millitary end-strength and stop paying them like indentured servants.

Retain superior senior personnel instead of forcing them out of the military based on some archaic "up or out" formula.

Stop using the military as some grand "social engineering" experiment by forcing it to adopt every nut-job theory thought up by academia.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stop using the military as some grand "social engineering" experiment by forcing it to adopt every nut-job theory thought up by academia.

I could agree with that. If the military teaches increasing levels of responsibility then theoretically those at the top ought to be most responsible.
Wasnt relaxing standards for CO's what brought us a gem like Wm Calley in Vietnam?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Wasnt relaxing standards for CO's what brought us a gem like Wm Calley in Vietnam?

Whoa!

William Calley wasn't general officer potential, but he was following orders as he understaood them and was a product of the training that was provided to him. He was also the fall guy for several tiers above him who did not wish to accept responsibility for what took place once it became public knowledge.

If you were not in the military at that time, you do not understand that William Calley was as much a victim as the residents of My Lei. I have no problem with your criticizing the system that created the incident, but when you denigrate Calley you show that you don't really understand or accept that the blame lies with the system and the superior officers, not with the unfortunate Lieutenant.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you were not in the military at that time, you do not understand that William Calley was as much a victim as the residents of My Lei.

Bull. Calley is still walking around and the folks at My Lei are dead. He was the commander on the scene. His commission was the result of lowered standards. Dont make him out to be hero 'cause he wasnt.

 

[Jammer Six]

William Calley wasn't general officer potential, but he was following orders as he understaood them and was a product of the training that was provided to him.

So was Hugh Thompson, so was Ron Ridenhour.

Your logic is the lowest form of closed-minded stupidity, and if true, would disparage every serviceman who was on duty that day.

Thompson and Ridenhour were trained by the same system, they were at the same place at the same time, they were under orders from that same system, and yet they reacted completely differently.

Your statement reveals that you know nothing about them, and, therefore, you know very little about My Lai.

Don't confuse a single person's reaction to the stress at My Lai with a general collapse of the command and control system, and don't ever disparage all those who were there that day with your ignorance.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

he was following orders as he understaood them and was a product of the training that was provided to him.

This defense was used in Nuremberg, and didn't work to good there, either.

 

[280PLUS]

If I'm not mistaken, we are dancing around the concept of the "free fire" zone? A lot of U.S. servicemen and Vietnamese alike fell prey to this policy. As I understand it, an area would be designated a "free fire" zone and all "loyal" Vietnamese were expected to leave that area. Any Vietnamese in the area after whatever deadline had been set were considered to be Viet Cong or their sympathizers and therefore fair game, if you will. By not leaving they immediately became the enemy through no fault of their own. The problem was that a lot of these people had been farming the same land for centuries and leaving it, in their minds, was simply out of the question. So it was quite literally open season on what were essentially farmers trying to remain on the land they had owned for generations. This policy, IMHO, had just as much to do with My Lai as Calley did. He was just as much a victim of the "free fire" zone as the people of My Lai. IMHO It was this policy that forced Calley to be the one to decide the fate of the My Lai people to begin with. Unfortunately he didn't have what it took to recognize this policy as inhumane and refuse to partake in it. He chose to follow orders and not buck the system. Hopefully the military has learned something in the way of "gaining the hearts and minds of the people" from the incident. Only time will tell.

 

[Cosmoline]

Declaring vast chunks of rural area "free fire" zones is exactly what you'd expect to see happen when you let accountants run a war. The policy allowed them to reclassify all the people in the zone as "the enemy" and helped pad their bottom line in the bean counting. It's no different in their eyes than shifting money from one account to another in order to make losses appear to be profit.

 

[KriegHund]

Draft would be a disaster. The ones not in or planning to go in, you do not want in the military.

We need to manage resources better though.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Incentive to go?

Maybe if they promise all the drug offenders that they'll be posted in Afghanistan?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The ones not in or planning to go in, you do not want in the military.

Why not?

Why is it assumed that just because someone doesn't particularly want to go into the military, they would be a bad soldier?

There are lots of things people don't particularly want to do, but still do, and do well.

If the draft was applied fairly, across all social groups equally, then I see no reason to believe draftees would perform worse than volunteers. The US won two World Wars with draftees, after all.

 

[Leatherneck]

We don't need the draft. We don't want the draft.
The draft chatter is just another cheap tactic of the lefties who hate America and want to use the war to attack the President.

I just got back from a visit to a Navy ship (LHD) at sea and I can't begin to express my admiration for the young crew members--men and women--and the Chiefs and POs that lead them. Hard-working, smart, and dedicated to getting their Marines to the fight and caring for them.

I do not want to pollute that pool of talent and dedication with a bunch of draftees like we had during the Vietnam era. Keep it pure, and as ET1 McCrackin says, emphasize incentives and fairness of treatment for the folks we have. Stop treating service members who are-for the most part-family members as if they were single and it's 1942.

TC

 

[Old NFO]

Well, the CNO wants to get rid of 60,000 sailors. Maybe they could learn to drive a truck and deliver supplies, freeing the Army ground pounders to do other interesting things.

Not quite WT- The CNO is being DIRECTED to reduce force structure by 60,000. That is coming directly from SECDEF's office. And yes, they are trying to give the good ones the option of lateral transfer to other services (USMC, USA, USAF).

I also agree with ET1- I was around for the draft and I saw what kinds of people were coming in the Army on the draft, that's why I went in the Navy

The overall force cuts under Clinton have backed us into a corner, we cannot sustain a limited 2 front fight today for anything over 15 days. If you look at how thin we are streched in Iraq and Afganistan and add the Tsunami relief, that caused MAJOR problems in Seventh Fleet and caused Third Fleet to have to bump ships forward just to maintain minimum force levels. Lincoln actuallly ws extended 30+ days and that is having major reprecussions on the entire PACFLT schedule. Also, the HSL community flew in excess of the entire 05 YEARLY flight hours in Tsunami relief, and now we have to find $$ to keep them at minimum safe standards.

 

[HankB]

Draft

I don't believe a draft would be successful, for one, major reason: memories of Vietnam.

We remember that fiasco and where it went - politics ruled proper strategy, instead of a no-holds-barred goal of defeating the enemy as in WWII we were playing games like "winning their hearts and minds" . . . all too similar what's going in on today.

If you thought draft-dodging was a problem THEN, just try it in 2006.

 

[280PLUS]

I also agree with ET1- I was around for the draft and I saw what kinds of people were coming in the Army on the draft, that's why I went in the Navy

I find this interesting given my foggy memories of the conversation I was refering to.

How did the draft work back then? Was the draft for the Army only or was an individual subject to be sent to any service at the whimsy of Uncle Sam?

Or

How did the Navy get it's people during that era and if draftees did you feel them to be substandard as a rule?

FYI I have a 19 yo son just graduating, I don't want a draft but I do want what is correct for our situation.

 

[Leatherneck]

Both Army and Marines were drafting young men. In fact, the Army actually had to draft some from the lowest mental category: IV. Those unfortunates were barely able to read & write, and had virtually no ability to work unsupervised.

TC

 

[280PLUS]

Leatherneck...

I found your comments reassuring. But then NFO's scared me



BTW We took care of our Marines in my day too!

 

[p35]

I have a kid I defended on a burglary charge 4-5 years ago. Basically, he was hanging out with some other guys and they got a case of the collective stupids and broke into a house. He served about 6 months in Juvenile Rehab for it, and since then has been holding a job and staying out of trouble. Now, he WANTS to join the Army and go to Iraq, and they won't take him because of his record. I miss the days when a kid could get a second chance after something like that.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

"Why do you think the anti-war LEFT is the force pushing for a draft, while the DOD wants nothing to do with it?"

An idiotic and completely unfounded comment based on nothing but Sean Hannity style masterbatory political deception.

 

[Old NFO]

I found your comments reassuring. But then NFO's scared me

Sorry bout that 280+, but that is the reality of today's military...
I see/hear it in just about every meeting I'm in at the Fleet level. Costs are up, funds are down, OPTEMPO/PERSTEMPO are up, but not enought $$ to support it and no real relief in sight. Just like the Marines- some of those folks are on their FIFTH deployment to Iraq- Army is averaging only 3 deployments at this time.

Even prior to 9/11, the kids were flying 50% less for training than we did in the 70's and 70% less on deployments than we did....

May 1975 in VP-04 we flew 2200 hours with 10 airplanes and 12 crews off the Vietnam coast during the fall of Vietnam. That is still the record- High time during the Gulf War is about 1100 hours.

 

[DRZinn]

An idiotic and completely unfounded comment based on nothing but Sean Hannity style masterbatory [sic] political deception.

Really? Who introduced the draft bill in the House, and who voted for it? And have you seen the DOD make any moves toward a draft? They don't want it, because soldiers who don't want to be are not good soldiers.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Washington Times

House rejects bill to restart military draft


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The House of Representatives yesterday overwhelmingly rejected a Democrat-sponsored bill to revive a military draft in a last-minute vote scheduled by its Republican leadership to squelch rumors that the Bush administration is planning to reinstitute mandatory military service.

Mr. Kerry has said several times on the campaign trail that President Bush might use a draft, including yesterday, in Tipton, Iowa, when he listed "the possibility of a draft" among his reasons that voters might be motivated to support him.
Yesterday's draft bill — sponsored by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat — was defeated 402-2, with even Mr. Rangel voting against the proposal that called for reinstituting the practice abandoned in 1973 when the military converted to an all-volunteer force.
Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, and Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat, voted for the measure.
Mr. Rangel said that his bill deserved "serious consideration" and that the surprise vote, scheduled just yesterday morning, was a "blatant politicization of the issue of meeting our military staffing requirements."
The bill, which Mr. Rangel said he introduced to make a political point that the military is being stretched too thin under Mr. Bush, would have required everyone, including women, between the ages of 18 to 26, to serve a period of military service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox News

House Opposes Military Draft Bill

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (search), D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.

GOP leaders said that Rangel and Hollings introduced the bills with the sole intent of scaring people in an election season.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Essex County]

I've given this quite a bit of thought. My perspective comes frpm the perspective of a 1966 Air Force enlistee, Back then some of us had a few (or More) years of higher education and some hadn't recieved a High School diploma. I observed that motivation was the key, Some people simply excelled when given the chance and others languished under the same conditions. Give me a troop that WANTS to be there rather than someone that WISHES he was back in corprate America............Essex

 

[280PLUS]

Sorry bout that 280+, but that is the reality of today's military...

The bill, which Mr. Rangel said he introduced to make a political point that the military is being stretched too thin under Mr. Bush, would have required everyone, including women, between the ages of 18 to 26, to serve a period of military service.

As much as I don't want to agree with anything Democrat right now I've always thought this would be a good idea. EVERYBODY gets a turn. Isn't this policy in places like Canada and the UK? Mandatory service for all? IMHO I feel that after our kids complete their tours they'll have a whole new perspective on life that only the service can bring. I know I sure did. And after seeing what some of the rest of the world has to offer you develop a new sense of what it is that we have here that is so much better than anywhere else on the planet. At least the places I went to anyhow. We got it goooood here compared to a lot of places! She ain't perfect, there's no denying that. But she's still better than anything else I've found and IMHO you can't appreciate that without leaving for a while.

Question: When was the last draft started and why?