homicide-erumpent
Notebook

How the New York Times would fix the military

May 18th, 2008 by Double Tap

When I see an editorial in the New York Times, with the headline “Fixing the military”, I cringe. God knows that the editorial board of the New York Times is truly a collection of experts on that subject.

After having read it, I have to admit that they make some good points, but leave little at the end by way of intelligent suggestions for improvement - which is pretty much what I expected.

First, there’s the laundry list of issues, of which most of us are aware:

Repeated, long deployments have put unsustainable stress on troops and pose significant risk to the all-volunteer military.

Got it, and it’s true. Some service members have done upwards of four tours already.

The Army has already had to reduce its standards to meet recruitment quotas. In 2007, only 79 percent of recruits had high school diplomas, down from 92 percent in 2003. The Army is also granting an increasing number of so-called “moral” waivers — given to recruits with criminal histories ranging from marijuana use to felony convictions.

Obviously, they quote statistics well. I’d like to point out however, that ALL the services have been hitting their recruiting goals. Despite the fact that the war in Iraq isn’t particularly popular, young men and women are signing up in droves. In the Army National Guard of my own state, we’ve been able to exceed our target strength for over a year now. We’re actually turning people away from joining some units.

Their next point, which may actually be related to their first, deals with the specter of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is a serious problem and has been named in several recent tragic events involving returning soldiers and marines.

Nearly one-fifth of the troops — some 300,000 men and women — have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan reporting post-traumatic stress disorders; only half have sought mental health treatment, in part because many feel it will derail careers, according to a study by the RAND think tank. That leaves countless service members susceptible to depression and suicide.

I can’t argue this point. It’s a huge problem. I know the Army recognizes the issue and has been working on it. The medical community is geared up to tackle the problem and soldiers returning from overseas are required to be screened. But let’s face it, until these wars are over, we’re going to have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines returning with these issues who are going to need help.

Next up, equipment…

With roughly half of its equipment deployed in Iraq under punishing conditions, the Army will need billions of dollars to re-equip its troops. The National Guard, whose primary task is to protect the homeland and respond to disasters, has only about 61 percent of its equipment because the rest is overseas.

Sadly, when these wars begin to wind down, military acquisition funding is going to dry up - which is what happened immediately after Desert Storm. Right now, while soldiers are being shot at, Congress and the country are pretty happy to keep funding the acquisition and/or repairs of equipment. I fear, however, that as soon as the shooting is done, military equipment purchases will be low on the list of priorities in Congress. Then, when the next war flares up, we’ll do what we’ve always done - play catch-up.

So what are the suggestions for improvement by the New York Times?

Fixing the military also will require a serious analysis of current and future threats, and a more rational procurement process…(It) will also mean ensuring that the military has a greater range and mix of capabilities, including more capacity for psychological operations, civil affairs and the training of foreign forces…Americans need, right now, to hear the candidates consider and debate these difficult issues.

Wow, they suggest “serious analysis” and “debate”. And, they throw in the usual “let the Special Forces do it” argument - which is what all the psychological operations, civil affairs and foreign forces training is all about.

Since the New York Times was thin in the suggestions for improvement department, here are my thoughts:

  • The next war will not be like the last - despite what everyone seems to think. Iraq was not like Afghanistan. Iran will not be like Iraq. China will not be like Iran. We must have both powerful conventional forces along with counter-insurgency forces. Right now, the army is gutting its conventional forces in favor of counter-insurgency. I believe this to be a mistake, and will prove to be a detriment in the next conventional battlefield.
  • Since money will of course be an issue, we should focus on bringing our forces back up to strength - replacing or rebuilding damaged equipment - rather than pour millions and billions into future weapons. We must field better gear than our potential adversaries, but we can’t let our current forces languish.
  • The Pentagon must be more aggressive about tackling the PTSD issue. It’s an age-old problem and will certainly occur in the next war. We have to be prepared for it at the start.
  • While it’s true that the military is forced to lower its standards when it must fill its ranks, this is a temporary fix to a temporary problem. When the shooting stops, the standards will rise - as they always have. The strange idea expressed by some liberals, that there needs to be a draft to somehow equalize the demographics of who serves, is ridiculous. Unpopular wars and the draft don’t mix - which is why we had so much social upheaval during the Vietnam War. Why would we want to put ourselves through that again? And if you think standards have been lowered now, just wait until we’re drafting people.
tag Category : Military
tag Tags : , , , , , , , ,
tag Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting