S-2

Over hill, and dale- Baltimore Sun

"Every West Point graduate must serve five years after leaving the academy, and historically all but about 29 percent of them continued their military careers after that term was up. But no more - as McClatchy Newspapers has reported, 35 percent of the Class of 2000 left the Army five years after graduation; 46 percent of the Class of '01 did so; and this year, 58 percent of the Class of '02 chose to leave active duty.

That's about as red a flag as could be imagined. Captains have a lot more to do with the smooth running of the Army than generals do, but the captains are getting out. And it's not just the West Pointers: The Army Reserve has only 53 percent of the captains it needs, and 58 percent of the sergeants first class."

If this article is using accurate data then we've a number of very serious problems. While enlistments have struggled for both the reserves and active army, re-enlistment rates of soldiers serving in combat arms have been touted as indicators of resiliency within our personnel system. It now seems that the officers of those soldiers see things differently and are leaving at rates nearly double the historical average, if graduates of the 2002 class of U.S.M.A. are any indication.

The implications of this message obviously reach far beyond the immediate impact upon small unit leadership. The class of 2002 were seniors on 9/11. What are these men and women telling us?



Your thoughts?

Courtesy of SWJ and the Baltimore Sun.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

S-2

Meanwhile, the Washington Times had this guest commentary about foreign service officers of the State Dept.

Halfhearted at State?

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

S-2

Glyn,

I fear that this is the inevitable product of a professional, all-volunteer force attempting to prosecute a war that demands the full force of both America and the U.K.'s nat'l power.

We seem to believe that we are best served by an all-volunteer force to fully carry the national burden. As such, for most people it's a choice best avoided simply because they can. Should we be surprised that our servicepeople feel duped while making sacrifices that others don't see as necessary to the common good?

glyn

[quote=S-2;424205]Glyn,

I fear that this is the inevitable product of a professional, all-volunteer force attempting to prosecute a war that demands the full force of both America and the U.K.'s nat'l power.

Agreed.

We seem to believe that we are best served by an all-volunteer force to fully carry the national burden.

The system worked well when there was little trouble abroad, but when it's high intensity action in MORE THAN ONE LOCATION at a time the system is found to be wanting. Larger forces are needed. The UK is using its Territorials to make up some of the shortfall in numbers. I don't know how much longer the MoD can keep wars going on the cheap. The bullet will have to be bitten and facts faced squarely, but I cannot see the current crop of politicos being willing to tackle the problem even though the need for more troops and materiel is increasing. Perhaps they hope the problem will go away of its own accord. Although I would welcome a restoration of National Service it is clear that the majority would not.

As such, for most people it's a choice best avoided simply because they can.

But of course they couldn't under National Service.

Should we be surprised that our servicepeople feel duped while making sacrifices that others don't see as necessary to the common good?

And that is the very heart of the problem. If our own country appears disinterested, and the public are not backing our troops in any meaningful way the troops will leave for pastures new that are better recompensed and risk-free. I am genuinely concerned at the problem.

astralis

S-2,

well, i think there's two problems you're pointing out here.

1. we don't have enough troops to "do the job",

2. the people are divested from having to carry the national burden.

conscription would indeed solve both those problems (of course coming with its own price, too- as vietnam showed, both in quality and in terms of the burden the people is willing to carry).

however, it's fully possible for an all-volunteer system to at least solve the first problem: to take a simplistic approach, i am pretty sure if the military suddenly decided to double the pay and benefits for every single rank, we would get plenty of volunteers. we did field a far bigger force in the 1980s, and we already had the all-volunteer system in place then.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Albany Rifles

Absolutely correct.

Reminds me of the sign I have seen


The US Army is at War. The American Public is at the Mall.

As I have often stated, where the the sense of a national shared effort? Where are the blood drives? The war bonds? A call for some sort of national sacrifice?

__________________
“When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.” — Oscar Wilde

S-2

"...conscription would indeed solve both those problems (of course coming with its own price, too- as vietnam showed, both in quality and in terms of the burden the people is willing to carry)."

Wrong. It stands to reason that a greater pool of qualified infantrymen would become available. Plenty of smart, healthy 18-22 males all over America's campuses. Quality- Vietnam, Astralis, showed the impact of conscription system skewed against the poor and under-privileged. Who do you think are filling the ranks these days? Hardly the "full force of nat'l power".

I think that it's fair to suggest that a brighter recruit would learn more quickly and retain more thoroughly. Of course, Mommy and Daddy's little boy would likely have to be a "grunt".

You're correct to allude to the Vietnam experience "in terms of the burden the people is willing to carry".

They weren't and they aren't.

Cactus

Was the professional US military plunged into a prolonged, low-intensity war in 1980s? No. So how can anyone extrapolate?

astralis

S-2,

sure- i believe today's kids are better educated and wealthier than ever. if a draft is instituted today, i have no doubt it will be fairer and thus result in conscript troops a good deal better than the historical average. but i'm comparing quality here in terms of the all-volunteer force, and not with prior historical conscriptions.

recruit quality is also connected into how much the kids buy into the idea of military service. will the conscript be as motivated and eager to serve as the person whom volunteered? i have my doubts.

case in point: the taiwanese military. conscription has been a way of life since the ROC gov't came to taiwan in '49. there has always been a cottage industry there of ways to avoid conscription. and when THAT failed...well, one of the largest unmentioned drivers of taiwanese immigration to the US has been the fact that after one stays a certain period of time on the island (i believe the cut-off point is in the 8th grade), one must serve in the military before one is allowed to leave. thus we have the phenomenom of many immigrants coming with 7th grade kids.

then of the conscripts themselves, plenty of stories of bad morale and discipline. in one particular example, apparently the ROCA made it an informal policy to have conscripts run ROCA accounting- and they made sure to hire only people with no experience whatsoever. the logic of that was, conscripts with no experience would lack the knowledge to "shuffle" money, and would not be around long enough to learn that knowledge.

it's gotten to the point where taiwan, despite being threatened by a military a good deal larger than their own, is going to phase out conscription.

astralis

cactus,

as with almost any decision, the decision to join the military is an economic one. is it worth it for me to join the military? clearly, raising the financial benefits of joining the military is certainly a big plus in that decision-making.

this is evidenced by the fact that recently, the US army has been granting large bonuses to people whom sign up- and they're doing so, as we're enlargening our force structure in a time of war.

it stands to reason that further enlargening the economic bonus would allow us to further enlargen our force structure, either until we reach the force size we want, or until the law of diminishing returns kick in. i suspect we'll reach the former before we get to the latter.

astralis

again,

it all depends on what role you want the military to fulfill. if you simply want to focus on practicality- aka making sure we have enough troops for the job- i think an all-volunteer military can be made to work, simply by increasing benefits.

if you want to focus on connecting the military to the nation, then conscription is the way to go.

JCT

US Marine Reserves has a similar shortage of company grade (Lt's & Capt's) officers in its ranks. This is partially due to how the MC Reserves acquires its officers (probably 95% serve 4+ years on active duty and so Lieutenants are very rare in the MC Reserve) and a lot with the current conflict.

Prior to Iraq, there were plenty of Captains in the Reserves. Case in point, my old Company had a full complement of Capt's (XO & 3 Plt Cmdrs) and there were several more on the Bn staff waiting for an empty platoon commander's slot. Today, the Company is lucky to have a single platoon commander and there is only a couple of Capt's on the Bn staff.

Majors and other field grade officers remain plentiful, although there are gaps in the staff.

My hypothesis as to the cause of this state of affairs points to the war. Those officers who want to continue to deploy, stay on active duty. Those who are done do not join the Reserves as they know that they will eventually have to deploy again. Just my two cents.

Feanor

Increasing pay and benefits is the most effective solution. Right now U.S. soldiers are getting paid very little compared to private sector jobs they could be in at home.

Shek

S-2,

Instead of looking at the fact that USMA 2002 were in their final year on 9/11, look at their world frame of view when they applied to West Point in 1997. The Army they would join upon graduation was one where if you deployed, you would kick a$$ in short order and then return home (ODS) or else spend six months deployed to a peacekeeping mission.

What did they find upon graduation? A trip to Iraq and back for 18 months. A trip to Iraq for 12 months, extended to 15 months, and back for a projected 12 months. The future expectation: wash, rinse, and repeat for a few years out. On the other hand, they have a degree and experience that is essentially a double major - their academic major plus a "major" in leadership/management with years of experience in the latter. Given the strong performing economy, the opportunity cost of staying in for at least two more deployments as a company grade officer is huge.

In contrast, the classes we have now joined in large part because of 9/11. The current graduating class maxed out the infantry slots on branch night, with a quarter of the people willing to serve an additional three years to guarantee that they received infantry. Now, some of those in the post-9/11 matriculation classes will find themselves with a different outlook than when they entered due to marriage, kids, etc., but there will not be a mismatch in expectations.

Additionally, a few years out, as you see the deployment tempo slow to a manageable and more predictable rate (due both to drawdowns and an increased force structure), you'll see attrtion as not being a big issue. The question becomes what to do with the five year group void where attrition combined with increasing the requirements means that we'll be short officers (the change in MTOEs for the transformation of units plus the increase in force size is the biggest contributor to the shortages).

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3