Troop Morale in Iraq Hits 'Rock Bottom'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,136
Location
Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
This is the most depressing thing I've read in a long time. A friend of mine's son is over there. The idiots that got us into this quagmire need to be ...


Published on Monday, July 7, 2003 by the Christian Science Monitor
Troop Morale in Iraq Hits 'Rock Bottom'
Soldiers stress is a key concern as the Army ponders whether to send more forces.
by Ann Scott Tyson

WASHINGTON – US troops facing extended deployments amid the danger, heat, and uncertainty of an Iraq occupation are suffering from low morale that has in some cases hit "rock bottom."

Even as President Bush speaks of a "massive and long-term" undertaking in rebuilding Iraq, that effort, as well as the high tempo of US military operations around the globe, is taking its toll on individual troops.

Some frustrated troops stationed in Iraq are writing letters to representatives in Congress to request their units be repatriated. "Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home," said one recent Congressional letter written by an Army soldier now based in Iraq. The soldier requested anonymity.

In some units, there has been an increase in letters from the Red Cross stating soldiers are needed at home, as well as daily instances of female troops being sent home due to pregnancy.

"Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom," said another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq.

Such open grumbling among troops comes as US commanders reevaluate the size and composition of the US-led coalition force needed to occupy Iraq. US Central Command, which is leading the occupation, is expected by mid-July to send a proposal to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on how many and what kind of troops are required, as well as on the rotation of forces there.

For soldiers, a life on the road

The rethink about troop levels comes as senior military leaders voice concern that multiple deployments around the world are already taxing the endurance of US forces, the Army in particular. Some 370,000 soldiers are now deployed overseas from an Army active-duty, guard, and reserve force of just over 1 million people, according to Army figures.

Experts warn that long, frequent deployments could lead to a rash of departures from the military. "Hordes of active-duty troops and reservists may soon leave the service rather than subject themselves to a life continually on the road," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution here.

A major Army study is now under way to examine the impact of this high pace of operations on the mental health of soldiers and families. "The cumulative effect of these work hours and deployment and training are big issues, and soldiers are concerned about it," says Col. Charles Hoge, who is leading the survey of 5,000 to 10,000 soldiers for the Walter Reed Institute of Army Research.

Concern over stressed troops is not new. In the late 1990s, a shrinking of military manpower combined with a rise in overseas missions prompted Congress to call for sharp pay increases for troops deployed over a certain number of days.

"But then came September 11 and the operational tempo went off the charts" and the Congressional plan was suspended, according to Ed Bruner, an expert on ground forces at the Congressional Research Service here.

Adding manpower to the region

Despite Pentagon statements before the war that the goal of US forces was to "liberate, not occupy" Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld warned last week that the war against terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere "will not be over any time soon."

Currently, there are some 230,000 US troops serving in and around Iraq, including nearly 150,000 US troops inside Iraq and 12,000 from Britain and other countries. According to the Pentagon, the number of foreign troops is expected to rise to 20,000 by September. Fresh foreign troops began flowing into Iraq this month, part of two multinational forces led by Poland and Britain. A third multinational force is also under consideration.

A crucial factor in determining troop levels are the daily attacks that have killed more than 30 US and British servicemen in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended.

The unexpected degree of resistance led the Pentagon to increase US ground troops in Iraq to mount a series of ongoing raids aimed at confiscating weapons and capturing opposition forces.

A tour of duty with no end in sight

As new US troops flowed into Iraq, others already in the region for several months, such as the 20,000-strong 3rd Infantry Division were retained in Iraq.

"Faced with continued resistance, Department of Defense now plans to keep a larger force in Iraq than anticipated for a period of time," Maj. Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, explained in a statement to families a month ago. "I appreciate the turmoil and stress that a continued deployment has caused," he added.

The open-ended deployments in Iraq are lowering morale among some ground troops, who say constantly shifting time tables are reducing confidence in their leadership. "The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all," a soldier in Iraq wrote in a letter to Congress.

Security threats, heat, harsh living conditions, and, for some soldiers, waiting and boredom have gradually eroded spirits. An estimated 9,000 troops from the 3rd Infantry Division - most deployed for at least six months and some for more than a year - have been waiting for several weeks, without a mission, to return to the United States, officers say.

In one Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops. "They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many of them walk around looking visibly tired and depressed.... We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in]."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0707-02.htm
 
Most of the attacks are probably on the soft targets. This is what happens when the liberal mindset takes hold in our nation and our military. A prime example is the coed boot camps, and the belief that those logistic troops will never see combat, so they aren't prepared adequately. Its not fair that women shouldn't be allowed to have the same jobs as men after all. Not only does this effect the in the rear with the gear troops, it trickles down through out our military. Its not PC to be a rock hard, water tight killing machine anymore.

Its not a quagmire, far from it. The country has been defeated. Some remnants are left. There always will be. They don't even have a military anymore, but this is what happens when we are the touchy feely nice guys like all the leftist earth muffins want. The left helps to embolden the terrorists by supporting them, and at the same time they criticize and blame the United States. Good job. :rolleyes:
 
Such reports

IF REPRESENTATIVE, are of concern. On the other hand, the news people have been telling us it was a quagmire since before it began, so I suspect a large degree of wish-fulfillment in this reporting. Nonetheless, open-ended commitments of fighters for peacekeeping misssions always lead to problems. I saw this in my Navy years under my last ( and oft-fellated) commander in chief.

BUT Malone, although the fact that poor manpower/pay/equipment choices, many made years before these 'idiots' took office, make a mission more difficult, I fail to see how that tells us anything at all about the wisdom of the choice of mission. If it had to be done (and I realize you deny that), then it had to be done with what we had at the time.

If for some reason you were allowed only a .22 when you should have had a .45, it does not follow that you're an idiot for using it when you need to shoot.

And, BTW, the idiots you refer to, who got us in the present state of our forces: those would be....Les Aspin, Bill Clinton, and the antiwar Demo-controlled Congress who created it before GWB and Rumsfeld took over. I think they could have been a lot more energetic about fixing it, but then I don't know all the factors.

And it does seem that if you get your data from more than the mainstream press and Democratic Underground or Common Dreams, you run across reports from servicemen in the field who say not to believe the doomsayers. So I conclude that there may be a morale problem among some members in some units, but it may or may not be the general mood of the force. Unless you've already decided, before the first shot was fired, that the missiion is a failure.
 
I've been grumping about our society's "TV Mentality" for a long time, and this sort of thinking about the present situation in Iraq is typical of that: In the usual sitcom, we start with some sort of conflict. Then, by application of money and/or technology and lots of good will and running in circles, we wind up with a clear-cut happy ending--and all very quickly.

Life ain't like that. It's messy.

Some of this, of course, might stem from the fact that so much of today's military is made up of NG and Reserve units. Many of them never expected to ever go into combat. And, it is indeed a disruption of the civilian side of life--but they volunteered, and have liked the extra money.

I was drafted and was sent to South Korea for occupation duty. I knew before I ever got on the ship that I was going to be there for 16 months. So, no point in bitching about the boredom after I was there...

My father and step-father went into the service in early 1942 "for the duration". Both saw combat. Both served somewhat more than 3-1/2 years...

I dunno. Seems like there's a bunch of Katie Courics running around who really like to eat sausage, as long as they don't have to know how it's made. We all know that Bad Guys obey gun-control laws, and evil dictators obey UN resolutions. If we just pass enough UN resolutions, we can bring all our guys home, since we'll have a happy and peaceful world.

Art
 
Yeah, being deployed sucks. What else is new? The author found some whiners, probably back in the rear with the gear like they usually are, and used it to "write" an "article."

I don't think I've ever been in the third world for months on end surrounded by crazy locals and NOT seen morale low. Even when it is going smoothly it ain't like a Riviera vacation, you know... what kind of FLAMING IDIOT would expect to find happy soldiers in Iraq, regardless of how well the mission is going in general? All the soldiers see is the specifics: bad food, a-hole locals, boring work, and random death. They want to go home? No ????!

:rolleyes:
 
The problem they face now is quite simple to understand but hard to correct.

The Military is trained to kill, the equipment they use designed to kill as well. The militaries' job is to fight a war.

They are now being asked to be police officers/ peacekeepers, they are not trained or designed for this task.

If we are going to keep being the worlds policeman, we need to have a branch of the service that is trained as a peackeeping / police force.
That needs to include a portable Court system and jail as well, a deployable temporary government complete with civil servants who can organize the resources on the ground, restore services and maintain order.

:rolleyes:
 
Yeah, M.B., occupation duty puts a lot of rust on the knife-edge. Funny, we're not seeing much in the news, these days, about the "degradation of capabilities" on the part of our occupation troops in the Balkans.

Seems to me one can find more national interest in Iraq and the mideast (can we spell "oil", class?) than in the Balkans. How come all our good liberal folks didn't raise a ruckus when Clinton started bombing civilian targets in Serbia? There's a word for their behavior about our bombing military targets in Iraq.

:), Art
 
They are now being asked to be police officers/ peacekeepers, they are not trained or designed for this task.

We've had plenty of practice: Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, Hati, Somalia...

Having done "peacekeeping" in 2 different 3rd world hell holes, I'd say that by and large it is a waste of everyone's time. The only exception to that is a situation where all the major factions actually agree that the peacekeepers should be there, and the population at large considers there presence a good thing. That isn't normally the case on peacekeeping missions, which tend to have little peace to keep and multiple factions with agendas opposed to the peacekeeper's presence. Hence their almost universal failure.

Post-war Iraq is definitely a mixed bag, but it is also far from the worst place we've been peacekeeping.
 
Sounds like a standard US military deployment to me.

Never, ever turn your back on a group of soldiers that does not bitch. Bitching is a healthy reaction to adverse circumstances.

Biggest problem we face is a media infested with reporters who have no real world experience much less military experience.

I'd pay more attention to that report if it came out of Gregg Kelley (FOX correspondent and reserve Marine pilot). Why? He's been there and done that. He would know what is routine complaints and what is exceptional.
 
Some of this, of course, might stem from the fact that so much of today's military is made up of NG and Reserve units. Many of them never expected to ever go into combat. And, it is indeed a disruption of the civilian side of life--but they volunteered, and have liked the extra money.

I think most people in the military don't expect to ever go into combat. That doesn't mean they won't do their job when their nation calls. As for NG and reserve units, from what I've seen, the reserve units serving are serving longer than their active duty counterparts (with the exception of the 3rd ID) and doing an excellent job.

Sounds like a standard US military deployment to me.

I wouldn't exactly call it standard. Standard (for a MEU deployment) would be 6 month rotations. A lot of the units in Iraq right now have already passed the 6 month mark with no retrograde date in sight. Also, most deployments don't end up in 3 weeks of combat and then months on end of peacekeeping in a still hostile environment.
 
My brother is over there. Last I heard he was building bunkers for something somewhere. I guess he's not allowed to give really detailed information about his location. He says it's hot, but he's getting a good tan, the chow could be better, but he's nowhere near starving, and he misses all of us back home, but he plans to return when his deployment is over. I don't expect his letters (or anyone else's) to say that he loves it over there and he's never coming home. Being in a combat zone and fighting a war isn't what one would normally call fun. I guess some reporters don't understand that.
 
Pick a country;pick a conflict;pick any point in history/pre-history.

Same story, different players.

Not new or newsworthy at all.
 
A letter to the editor of the Washington Post from an Army Captain in Iraq. I don't quite know what to say. I am sorry his e-mail service is limited. John

________________________________
Looking for Real Life

Monday, July 7, 2003; Page A16


Among the reasons for plummeting troop morale in Iraq [front page, June 20] is the fact that the Army seems unable to provide even a minimal quality of life for us. From toilet paper to telephone service, everything is perpetually "on its way."

It takes three weeks for mail to arrive. Telephone service is spotty, and almost none is available for calls to the States; likewise, e-mail access is very limited. Hot showers, hot chow and climate-controlled living spaces are a distant dream for most troops.

The men and women on the ground will continue to soldier on, but the Army could at least provide some taste of real life in return.

RUSSELL A. BURGOS

Thousand Oaks, Calif.

The writer is a U.S. Army captain stationed in Iraq.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company
 
My kid is home from Iraq for 2 weeks

He is home on a two week compassionate leave to attend a family funeral. He's attached to the 11th Sig. Bde. and has been all over Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc. He goes back this Sunday with both my prayers and a couple of days at the range to sharpen his eye just a bit with the .45.

He has been complaining about the dust and sand, the food, the heat, the Afghan mine fields ("Red painted rocks mark Boom sites, white rocks, maybe Boom sites") since he got home. The one question he is firm on is that we did the right thing by going over there.

He spent two weeks on body recovery detail in Baghdad last month, hauling bodies they found in alleys and basements with one bullet in the back of the head. The media is screwaming about how many of our troops are being attacked since the "peace" was delcared. Hey! Not as many as die in Chicago in intergang gun fights in the same period and this is a gun free city!

The other thing that he is very confident about, trooper complaints nonwithstanding, is that the overwhelming majority of troops support what Bush did by making the decision to go in finally, after 13 years of duplicity and political game playing.

A large section of the general media seems to be desparately grasping for anything to throw at Bush. Their own embedded reporters stopped that for a while because their first hand reports and interviews with the troops themselves, live via sattelite phone didn't serve that point of view. It's hard to spin a Marine Gunny looking the camera in the eye and saying we're doing the right thing. But, now it's different.

Now instead of direct feedback from the troops themselves we're all supposed to trust a reporter here and there that finds someone to supposedly complain about how wrong we are for even being there.

Sorry, I'll trust my own kid's personal observation and point of view before I trust a pointy headed reporter that has a not so subtle agenda to fulfill. Call me when she interviews the people that acidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Kosovo under Clinton with the same zeal and gusto and maybe I'll believe she's being even handed.

My overall personal opinion is that a lot of the press people hate Bush more than they did Reagan and are stunned that the rest of the American population doesn't see him for the doofus they all think he is. For reference see Demo Underground, where they pray for an untimely end to the entire administration and jail for most daily.

The troops are always going to complain, that has been a tradition since outside the walls of Troy. But since no reporters have ever served how would they know that?.

Don P.
 
"On the other hand, the news people have been telling us it was a quagmire since before it began, so I suspect a large degree of wish-fulfillment in this reporting. Nonetheless"

Yup. I've been seeing a rash of these reports and don't trust any of them. Almost all the sources are unnamed, with the exception of a few truly disgruntled soldiers who want to complain.
 
They are now being asked to be police officers/ peacekeepers, they are not trained or designed for this task.

I've heard this argument a lot. But I find it quite bogus.

Do you think if we had police officers (MP's) instead of combat arms troops, the situation would be different?

Green troops are green troops. They get scared and the finger tightens on the trigger. They shoot into the crowd.

Don
 
Scroll up!

Sorry, this might have confused some.

The "police" vs. "combat arms" in Iraq argument is from several sources. It's STILL a bogus argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top