The United States is Running Out of Troops

H

Hard Ball

New member
The reduction in the size of our regular army (from 18 ivisions in 1991 to 10 today) and the great number of peace keeping operations the administration has commited us to has badly strained the army's capability to carry out all the missions DOD has assigned to it.
There simply not enough recular army soldiers to meet all the requirements.
The Clinton Adninistration has refused to enlarge tge rgular army or reduce our nantional commitments.
To prevent a breakdown DOD is now sending National Guard divisions to Bosnia to relive regular Army units there. To avoid political impact DOD is plnning to keep each National Guard division there for only six to eight months. The operation has already started. The 49thAmored Division (Texas NG) is deploying now. It will be followed by the 29th Infantry Division (Virginia NG). Other National Guard divisions will be rotated in for as long as we continue to keep US troops in Bosnia.
 
But... why oh why don't more fine young people want to go shoot other people in other countries?!

Gee, could it be that they know their boss is a worthless sack of offal who barely knows which end the bullet comes out of, and can't formulate a coherent foreign policy to save his flabby white butt?

Could it be that they talk to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are fleeing the military in unprecedented numbers, and they find that military life isn't *quite* as |<3\/\/|_ as the commercials make it seem?

Could it be that they don't want to risk getting killed by factions who've been beating the hell out of each other 3 times longer than this country has existed?

Naw... gotta be something else. :mad:

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
We are not running out of troops, they just leave. I wish I would have never re-up'd. I have way to much time as it is(3yrs). The big demand is in my career field/for the USAF.(computer operations) The gov't was giving us a Re-enlistment bonus

A Cycle 1-5 years 3.0
B Cycle 6-10 yrs 5.0(the highest they can give us)
C cycle 11-14 1.0

Now the numbers you would take and multiply them buy your base pay over the years you re-enlist

example for me 1469*5.0= 7345.00 * 6yrs = 44070 / 2 ( they give us half up front and the rest every aniver. yr) = 22035 - 28% back to Uncle Sam.

So to most of us that are in this career field, 22k up front is nothing when we are being offered 50, 60, 70K jobs, stay in the same place, don't have to put up with going TDY every 120 days(for some).

Then this year, when I got back from Kuwait, we get this e-mail down saying that the re-enlistment bonus has gone down. The e-mail explains that due to the HUGE 4.? % raise we got and that we now once again after 20 get 50% retirement that we don't need the big bonus. Plus this letter came down from a Cheif Master Sgt. (E-9) and also said "I know you can get better paying jobs BLAH BLAH BLAH" That right there added another log to fire for me getting out. You ask troops why they came in, not patriotism, but needed a job, dad/ grandfather where in. Then if you did some of the things that our leaders did you would be kicked out. We are subject to the anthrax shot, which you can say what you want about it, but there are thousands of strands of anthrax out there and one vaccine will cover one strand. I took 2 out of the 6 shots. Wont take another. The 2 I took made me so dizzy that I couldn't even stand up for hours. A 2ND Lt over there broke out with a rash so bad, 1st case that was known, And they told her at her base that it was a skin virus, took her to get to Kuwait to find out that it was the shot that was doing it to her.

While over in Kuwait, the gaurd was there. God bless those people from Miss. In the gresatest spirt all the time. Most TDY's are 90-120 days, theirs was 230, missed Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years.

I ask this, who would want to be subject to this. Yeah I hear I signed the papers. And I did. I haven't recieved a negative eval. I do a lot for our Squadron. I try to stay in the best of spirts that I can. But I will not stay in nor will a lot of people that I know.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, and my intent isnt to offend anyone. I know there were a lot of great people that died for this country. I know their are a lot of retired and older enlisted that might read this and say other wise. I respect them for that. I hear about how it use to be. I wish it was like it use to be, when people had respect for thier service. You look now and their is very little. Just by apperance you can tell.

just my 2 cents
 
Let me just express my thanks for you and all the others who wear the uniform. It's a rough life, and the bull excrement gets deep sometimes, and people like you don't get thanked often enough.

Dave
(Formerly of Uncle Sam's Travel Club: Osan, Korea, Grossauheim, Germany and Fort Bitch --oops, I mean, Fort Bliss, TX)
 
We are running out of troops didn't any one read David Hackworths article last fall when he talks about the fact that every rifle platoon in the US Army is short its third Rifle squad.
 
I am in the 29 Infantry Division and they are sending one company from my battalion (1/102) to Bosnia in September. As of now it is on a volunteer basis but I have a feeling that will change as I don't hear of too many troops raising their hands. We have trouble finding recruits in my state for the Guard when we offer free college tuition to any state school as well as the G.I. bill.
 
glockguy45:
Quote:
I know their are a lot of retired and older enlisted that might read this and say other wise. I respect them for that. I hear about how it use to be. I wish it was like it use to be, when people had respect for thier service. You look now and their is very
little. Just by apperance you can tell.

I retired in 1972 because I did'nt like the way things were going, so I'm darn sure that I wouldnt like it now.
Whatever you do, I wish you the very best, and THANKS.

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
Actually we are just sending the headquarters of the 49th Division to Bosnia. They will take over command and control of the operation. So far we have only deployed company sized units of trigger pullers on these missions (this doesn't count specialized support troops). A midwestern state is preparing to send two rifle companies to Kuwait.

The powers that be have just lowered the number of days reserve component troops can be deployed to 179 (this doesn't include training and travel time) this will make tours in Bosnia and Kuwait and other places the same as the active component. Previously they could have been deployed for up to 270 days.

I will dig out the Army Almanac tomorrow and post the actual numbers of soldiers and where they are assigned. Most of the force is not in deployable units, but manning the service schools, serving in headquarters and staffs, or in school.

The Chief of Staff has made manning the combat units a priority, but it won't be until later in the summer until the combat units see some relief.

When a unit (active or reserve) deploys, it's strength is plussed up by stripping the other units.

Jeff
 
The Army's statement on the 49th Armored Division's deployment says:
" For first time since the Army began the mission (in Bosnia)in late 1995, a National Guard unit will make up a sizeable portion of the peacekeeping force. It is also the first time a National Guard headquarters organization will command Multinational Division (North) and Task Force Eagle."
 
But they will be home by Christmas...right?

---------------------
On Sundays I elude the eyes
And hop the turbine freight
To fall outside the wire
Where my white-haired uncle waits
-Music by Lee and Lifeson/Lyrics by Peart
 
These are the FY 2000 strength figures for the Army. This data was reported in the January 2000 issue of Soldiers magazine and was drawn from official sources as of 30 June 1999.

End strength of the regular Army is 480,000. This is down 2000 from 1999 and 5000 from 1997.

Of this 480,000; 72,103 are women who are forbidden by law from serving in roles that would put them in direct ground combat. This means no women in Infantry, Artillery, Armor or Combat Engineers. The point of the spear.

Of the 480,000; 1,830 are assigned to Army Material Command. These soldiers provide material readiness (they buy things). 1,024 are assigned to Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID). 9,000 are assigned to Army Intelligence and Security Command. 2,650 are assigned to the Military District of Washington. 27,097 are assigned to MEDCOM and work in hospitals and clinics. 264 are assigned to Military Traffic Management Command. 625 are assigned to Space and Missile Defense Command. 43,244 to Training and Doctrine Command (the school system), 500 to the Corps of Engineers (the ones that run the locks and dams).

This leaves us 393,766 available for assignment to combat units. Lets subtract the 72,103 women and that leaves us 321,663 soldiers for our 10 divisions. Which if you estimate the end strength of a heavy division at 16,000 should be enough soldiers for 20 divisions. So where are all of our troops? Well, a good part of them are in training. 13,300 of them are in Special Operations Command.

Why are our combat units facing manpower shortages? Many soldiers assigned to the combat commands are working in the headquarters and support structure. This naturally means that rifle squads, tank and artillery crews are cut back to meet these other needs.

Our 10 divisions have 4 corps headquarters over them. Our Army of 480,000 has more flag officers then it did at the end of WWII, when we had millions on active duty.

For comparison, before we expanded the force for Desert Shield/Storm, we had 781,000 on active duty.

This brings up another issue. How would we expand the force if we needed to to meet a crisis in Asia or somewhere else in the world? The National Guard has a strength of 357,000 and the Army Reserve has 206,000. This gives us an ability upon total mobilization capability of 1,143,000 if everything goes right.

Before WWII we called up the Guard divisions a year in advance. What are the chances we'll get that kind of notice before a crisis again?

Just food for thought.

Jeff
 
JW:
I hate to tell you but women are in the FA. I have 1 in my current OBC student platoon right now.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Jeff, I'm in the amen pew on this, but there are no easy answers. here are some figures from the US Army in WWII, showing how manpower was distributed per maneuver division;
- 13,800 men per division (on average)
- 13,000 in CSS
- 10,000 in "communication zone" service (i.e. medical, transport, MP, training & replacements, etc)
- 20,000 miscellaneous
now with mechanization, we need a lot fewer "strong-back/weak-mind" types to manhandle crates and whatnot. but modern combat does seem to need a lot of tail to support the teeth.

here's the problem; in WWII, this worked because the US by itself had similar population levels as our two enemies. things will not be so in the future; Russia, China, and India each outnumber us.

one solution is to move some of the CSS and most of the "communication zone" activities to the Guard. another is to overhaul the "tail" and try to reduce the manpower requirements. I doubt we can cut down on CSS, in fact we probably could use more. but perhaps we can identify ways in which our supply train can be simplified. also, we can look at the total cost of an equipment item; if it requires too much maintenance, then we might be better off with a more expensive but maintenance-free item.

funny how important a lot of BS is in peacetime and in rear echelon areas, that is ignored out at the forward edge. in WWII, the crew on destroyers and smaller vessels had rather lax grooming standards, since destroyers were considered the backwater of the Navy and officers assigned to them were usually not fast-trackers. long hair, beards, earrings were common when away from base, and uniforms were often cutoff dungarees and sandals. quite a bit different from the battleship crowd! despite the "lack of discipline," the combat performance of the DD crowd in the Pacific was exemplary. maybe we'd get more recruits if we treated them like professionals rather than convicts.
 
STLRN-I was aware that officer specialty 13E was going to be permitted to command FA training units. When this hit Army Times a few years ago, the are recruiting NCOIC was jumping for joy. Too bad I had to show him the entire article where it said officer specialty and spoil his day. (Guard recruiters hate combat units because it really cuts down their market in a given geographic area)

Ivanhoe- Once again I'd like to make the point that we don't really have a defense policy. Unit types are kept in the force structure for political reasons and we don't make decisions for the right reasons.

I'm concerned that we won't have a system in place to provide replacements to the deployed units in a timely manner. We seem to have forgotten that war is a dirty business and that we will lose people. Where are these trained replacements going to come from?

If the selective service system works (and I'm not at all comfortable that it would) we would probably be 30 to 90 days from enactment of the draft before the first new soldier was inducted. Then it would be a minimum of 8 months before he was prepared for deployment as a barely trained soldier.

Where will we get officers and noncommissioned officers to expand exisiting units and form new ones? You can't draft 10 years experience. If you give all of the CSS role to the guard, then you have no cadre of trained leadership in the combat arms with which to expand your force. This reason is good enough to justify continuing combat arms units in the reserve components. Did you know that several of the 10 existing divisions are only organized at 2/3s strength? Where are the officers and NCOs going to come from to make these into whole divisions again? Will we get into a situation like we had in Vietnam where we had "shake and bake" NCOs (draftees that scored high on the ASVAB and sent to an NCO academy right after AIT) and an accellerated OCS program? We have the best officer and NCO education system in the world, but it's not the kind of thing that can be greatly accellerated.

I think our tooth to tail ratio is somewhat higher today then it was in WWII. I don't know what the solution for that is. I do know that I don't think we've got enough troops to sustain ourselves in much of a fight and no way to rapidly expand the force.

I think we need to have a reasoned defnse policy. If we decide that we are going to have enough forces to sustain 2 major regional conflicts, lets organize, train and equip our forces to do that. If we don't have the political will to do that. Lets not run our foreign policy like we do.

I think the average American citizen is even more ignorant and apathetic towards defense policy then he is toward RKBA. The mainstream press doesn't cover this issue and the average citizen sleeps well secure in the knowledge that he's protected by the victors of Desert Storm. What will their reaction be when CNN brings graphic pictures of casualties into their living rooms and reports of units dying because they don't have replacements?

Jeff
 
how useful would it be for Washington to require something along the lines of the following?

"Perform a full-dress amphibious assault on a beach at least 2000 miles from the nearest USMC/USN base, with at least one full Marine division and all necessary support units."

in other words, require the service in question to perform a full-scale exercise to test the performance of all phases of the system, from planning to transport to assault to combat support. we used to do a lot of large-scale exercises, i.e. Reforger, Bright Star, and such. maybe its time to stress-test the system again to see where the bottlenecks are.

Jeff, your concerns about the draft and training sure are valid. its not like life in maneuver divisions has gotten any simpler, and we can't afford another debacle like 'Nam where the services were putting guys into the jungle a coupla months after boot camp. the next serious conflict will likely play out kinda like WWII. we'll have to play 2nd string for awhile until we can process enough draftees into functional divisions, by which time the OPFOR will have had time to fortify, requiring yet more maneuver divisions and cannon fodder.

I wouldn't be surprised if we have the same tooth/tail ratio as in earlier times, but I have no doubt that we have more lardass dragging along. I believe this is due to the fact that command of combat units is only a "ticket-punch" to advancement, rather than the primary requirement. we cycle colonels and generals thru brigade and division commands like poop thru the proverbial goose, in order for everybody to check off the box on the resume. I'd like to see some sort of minimum requirements for certain promotions. for example, no promotion from colonel to 1 star unless you have 5 years in command of a combat battalion. maybe have 3 hurdles; CPT -> MAJ, COL -> BG, and MG -> LTG. too many colonels have made 1 star by being in charge of a procurement program. this hopefully would thin down the number of Pentagon Princes, and thus the dead weight.
 
It's a shame they have to send in National Guard Troops to Bosnia. When I was there shortly after the seige of Sarajevo, the thought of reservists and national guards being deployed would get you laughed at. Many of the NG and reservists were a joke in Saudi. It's not their fault because their training is limited to one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. You can't expect troops to respond efficiently with that limited amount of training.

I have regular army friends still stationed in Tuzla, Bosnia. It's not bad there now. Most of the time, boredom kills them.
Anyway, stay clear of mind fields and be careful down in the box. God bless.

Svt
 
At current troop depletion rates, the United States in the near future will find itself in a dilemma: do nothing to agression, or rely on nuclear arsenal.


-------------------------------------
What do you want?
Freedom to live as we are.
Anything else?
Guns, so they can't take the freedom away!
I'll see what I can do-
And grenades, mortars, and mines, so they can't take the guns away!
 
And this is the same damn reason I've been saying that if there's a Martial Law, or other reason, there will be UN troops here, NOT US TROOPS.

Hell, this has been Klintoon's intent from the start. So disable the American military's abilities to perform their primary function that it has no choice but to charter from foreign bodies. I sure hope I'm wrong, but I still feel that way.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
SVT, Both the Regular Army and the Guard and Reserve need to get honest about some things.

The regular force needs to quit walking around fearing they will lose all of their missions to the much cheaper reserve components. In this day and age we will not have the lead time to mobilize and train up the reserve components in time for them to be our primary defense. The active component has to be big and robust enough to meet immediate needs. If we had an actual defense policy, instead of all these little groups running around competing for scarce resources we wouldn't have these problems. It's funny but the other services don't seem to have problems integrating their reserve components.

The National Guard and Army Reserve need to quit lying to everyone about being just as capable as the regular Army. They aren't and can't be. You just can't maintain the same standards as everyone else on 48 paid training assemblies a year and 15 days annual training. Take the PT standard for instance. You can't force a soldier who you only control one weekend a month to maintain physical fitness. He has to want to do that. But the senior leadership of the Guard and Reserve insists that they do. It's a lie. The number of soldiers from the reserve components who are returned home from professional schooling for APFT failure is staggering. The dollars wasted would be a candidate for the old Golden Fleece Award that the one senator from Alaska used to give out. So we spend a lot of time and money on programs to try to get these soldiers to pass the APFT only working with them one weekend a month. But what is the easiest soldier skill to aquire, physical fitness. When the units are mobilized, six weeks of proper diet and a decent PT program will have them ready to meet Army standards. Training time is devoted to many things besides mission training. A reserve component commander is expected to accomplish everything in his one weekend a month drill that an active component commander has a whole month to do. Mandatory briefings, admin actions, Officer and NCO Development Programs, family support group activities, OER and NCOER counseling, retention counseling, PT, weight control, sponsorship programs are all monthly requirements. In addition the commander, unlike the active component commander is responsible for recruiting. In many instances a commander's evaluation is weighted more by how many soldiers he has in his unit, then by how well they could perform their mission.

But with all of those requirements, they somehow manage to get the job done.

If we had an actual defense policy, we wouldn't have these problems. But we don't. We have services negotiating with each other for missions and resources. All of the emphisis on joint operations required by the Nichols/Goldwater Act has helped, but isn't the Seretary of Defense supposed to be the ultimate "purple suiter"? Shouldn't they sit down at the cabinet level and decide what they want the military to do and then come up with a blueprint on how the force needs to be made up and organized to accomplish that? It seems to me that somewhere between the decision on what we want our forces to do and the organization and resourcing of them, there is a big breakdown. To me it's criminal neglect to tell congress and the Americanpeople that you can take the force structure and equipment you have been given and fight two major regional conflicts simultanously. Someday the emporer will discove he has no clothes and young Americans will bleed and die because of it.

Don, who in the UN has enough troops to occupy the US? Everyone else's military is smaller then ours. Military forces are expensive and they produce nothing. Why do you think we are the worlds policeman? No one else wants to devote that kind of percentage of their economy to their own defense. Their populations live a much higher standard of living when we protect them.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top