Now we have a couple of stories coming out through McClatchy's Washington Bureau. Let's start with the story Reserves, National Guard feel strain of prolonged deployment:
WASHINGTON - The nation's National Guard and Reserve forces are displaying signs of strain after five years of deployments in what has become the biggest active duty mobilization since the Korean War.
More than 500,000 Guard and Reserve troops have served in active duty since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and they've made up nearly half of the force fighting against terrorists and in combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Military leaders, pointing to an upswing in recruiting and retention, describe the nation's reserve force as the most professional and combat seasoned in history, bonded by a keen sense of patriotism.
But at the same time, many Guard units are struggling with chronic equipment shortages and funding problems that threaten their ability to respond to disaster and other emergencies in their home states. Thousands of reservists are serving in patchwork units cobbled together in piecemeal fashion from other units, often with little or no sense of cohesion.
"I think you're seeing the leading edge indicators of strain and fraying the edges," said Arnold L. Punaro, a retired Marine Corps general who chairs a commission looking into a possible overhaul of the Guard and Reserve. "And, yes, they are doing a good job of recruiting and retention, but at what cost and how long can they sustain it?"
The widening concerns over the reserve component come at a time when U.S. military leaders are pressing for even more reinforcements from Guard and Reserves to help ease the pressure on active-duty forces.
The same problems that are affecting the regular Army is also affecting the Army Reserve and National Guard forces--equipment problems, funding shortages, and reservists moving through a patch-work of piecemeal units. What is so ironic is how Army General Peter J. Schoomaker is asking both Congress and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for full access to both the Reserves and Guard troops as a means to bolster the regular Army's own problems--equipment problems, funding shortages, and recruitment problems. It is like trying to put a fire out by pouring gasoline on it. Schoomaker's use of the Reserve and Guard troops to bolster the regular Army is only going to cause the Reserve and Guard forces to break down even faster, and the Army will still be in the same problem of trying to fight a war in Iraq when it doesn't have the manpower and equipment needed.
Continuing with the McClatchy article:
Lt. Gen. David Poythress, the state adjutant general for the Georgia National Guard, said he agreed with Schoomaker that there need to be changes in the Army's structure since it's configured to fight high-intensity, short-duration wars, not the grinding guerrilla conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he expressed concern that the National Guard may be carrying too much of the load.
"You need readily available manpower on both the active and the reserve side," Poythress said. "There is a danger of breaking the Army, but there is an equivalent danger of breaking the Guard. Guardsmen don't sign up to be full-time soldiers. If that's what they wanted, they'd join the active Army."
Reserve advocates are noticing indications that some 30-something junior officers and non-commissioned officers are thinking about pulling the plug on their reserve status in order keep from falling behind on the civilian career ladder.
"They're at a point in their civilian career where they're making their mark," said Lt. Gen. Charles G. Rodriguez of Austin, adjutant general for the Texas National Guard. "Now is the time for them to punch their tickets and do all the hard things in their civilian jobs. If they're not there, they can't punch those tickets."
I would say that the 30-something junior officers and the NCOs are the heart and soul of the Guard and Reserve forces. Many of these guys probably served in the regular Army, and when their enlistment contracts were up, they decided to switch over to the Guard and Reserves to continue polishing their skills, serving their country, or whatever other reasons they may have. What is important to realize is that these guys are the most experienced of the Guard and Reserve troops. They are also starting up the civilian career ladder here. If the regular Army starts forcing them back into serving multiple tours in Iraq through the backdoor draft, you can bet that these guys are going to start pulling out of their reserve status. This may cause a drop in the long-term effectiveness of both the Guard and Reserve forces. And it may already be starting:
Punaro and others also have criticized the Pentagon's mobilization polices, which they say have virtually wrecked unit cohesion in the National Guard and Reserves and left many units scrambling for volunteers to fill the ranks when the time came for them to deploy.
If only the Pentagon generals will learn.
That was just the first story. Now here is the second story I found off McClatchy, titled Official Iraq war costs don't tell the whole story:
WASHINGTON - During a recent visit to a military family center at Fort Hood in Texas, Joyce Raezer was dismayed to find a sign in a stall in the ladies' room. It asked women to clean up because janitorial service had been cut back.
"What message does that send to a family member when they walk into a family center?" asked Raezer, the director of government relations for the National Military Families Association.
At Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri, swimming pools closed a month early this fall, and shuttle vans were sharply curtailed in an effort to trim spending. At Fort Sam Houston in Texas, unpaid utility bills exceeded $4 million, and the base reduced mail delivery to cut costs.
Belt-tightening at the bases is only the beginning. As the United States spends about $8 billion a month in Iraq, the military is being forced to cut costs in ways big and small.
Soldiers preparing to ship to Iraq don't have enough equipment to train on because it's been left in Iraq, where it's most needed. Thousands of tanks and other vehicles sit at repair depots waiting to be fixed because funds are short.
At the Red River Army Depot in Texas, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in October that at least 6,200 Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, trucks and ambulances were awaiting repair because of insufficient funds.
There's a virtual graveyard of tanks and fighting vehicles at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama. Depot spokeswoman Joan Gustafson said that the depot expects to repair 1,885 tanks and other armored vehicles during the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. That's up from the 1,169 and 1,035 vehicles repaired in the prior two fiscal years.
Some of the depot's private-sector contractors haven't been able to supply enough parts in time to make all the repairs, she said. The depot is trying to reduce the time it takes to get repair and replacement parts from 120 days to 60 days.
I'll be honest--I don't know what comment I could say here to express the shock and disgust that I see at how our military is being destroyed by this disastrous Iraq war--a war of choice initiated by the Bush administration. When you've got a situation where the Army doesn't have enough funds to deliver to pay for their electric bill, deliver the base mail, or even clean their own frickin' toilets? You've got a once proud military that is now becoming a basket case. And it is not just the lights and toilets here:
More than 73,000 soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and with problems such as drug abuse and depression. That's enough people to fill a typical NFL stadium.
Internet blogs written by soldiers or their wives tell of suicide attempts by soldiers haunted by the horror of combat, civilian careers of reservists who've been harmed by deployment and redeployment, and marriages broken by distance and the trauma of war.
"Back-to-back war deployments has changed both of us - to where it's as if a marriage does not exist anymore," wrote a woman calling herself Blackhawk wife on an Iraq war vets Web site. "We just go through the daily steps of life and raising children as best we can."
A mother of a returning soldier posted this: "Since he has been back, he has had 3 DUIs, wrecked his truck, attempted suicide, been diagnosed with PTSD" and is being kicked out of the Army.
I have one question to ask General Peter J. Schoomaker: If you succeed in giving the Army full access to both the Guard and Reserve forces, how many of these Guard and Reserve soldiers will come back home with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), after serving their own third, fourth, or perhaps even fifth tour? We can already see how the Bush administration takes care of this nations veterans--by pretty much gutting the Veterans Administration budget. And general, what is your response to this cost upon our country:
Nearly one in five soldiers leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan has been at least partly disabled as a result of service, according to documents of the Department of Veterans Affairs obtained by a Washington research group.
The number of veterans granted disability compensation, more than 100,000 to date, suggests that taxpayers have only begun to pay the long-term financial cost of the two conflicts. About 567,000 of the 1.5 million American troops who have served so far have been discharged.
“The trend is ominous,” said Paul Sullivan, director of programs for Veterans for America, an advocacy group, and a former V.A. analyst.
Mr. Sullivan said that if the current proportions held up over time, 400,000 returning service members could eventually apply for disability benefits when they retired.
[....]
The documents on the current conflicts provide no details on the type of disabilities claimed by veterans. Most were found to be 30 percent disabled or less, and one in 10 recipients was found to be 100 percent disabled. Payments run from a few hundred dollars to more than $1,000 a month depending on the severity of the disability.
A separate V.A. health care report shows that the most common treatments sought by recently discharged troops are for musculoskeletal disorders like back pain, followed by mental disorders, notably post traumatic stress disorder. About 30,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have sought treatment for post traumatic stress, which afflicts soldiers who have been under fire or in prolonged danger of attack.
[....]
The documents show that 37 percent of active duty veterans have filed for disability compensation, compared with 20 percent of those who served with National Guard or Reserve units. Also, 18 percent of claims filed by Guard and Reserve soldiers are denied, compared with 8 percent of those filed by active duty troops.
The report offered no explanation for the differences, but veterans’ advocates said efforts to explain V.A. procedures might be better for those leaving active duty than those offered to reservists.
“The Guard and reservists may be falling through the cracks at a higher rate,” said Joseph A. Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. “The V.A. needs to study why there’s a difference.”
So General, even when you take control of the Guards and Reserve troops, not only will you be condemning them to death, disabilities, and PTSD, but they also will not be able to receive veterans benefits that the regular Army soldiers will get. Is this what you want?
A final quote on the war costs from McClatchy:
The length of the Iraq war surpassed that of World War II last month. The costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global fight against terrorism are expected to surpass the $536 billion in inflation-adjusted costs of the Vietnam War by spring. That's more than 10 times the Bush administration's $50 billion prewar estimate.
Through the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, Congress authorized about $436 billion in war spending, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
In October, President Bush signed legislation that tacked on $70 billion, bringing the total to more than $506 billion. That number will rise again once Congress appropriates Iraq stabilization and reconstruction funding.
The armed services, seeking to replace aging equipment and address quality-of-life issues for military families, are believed to be seeking $100 billion to $160 billion in a supplemental spending bill for spring.
If that's approved, war funding - three-quarters of it going to Iraq-related operations - would reach nearly $700 billion. If U.S. troops remain in Iraq through 2010, it will approach $1 trillion.
In January, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz released a study that said the true costs of the Iraq war could exceed $1 trillion and perhaps reach $2 trillion.
"When I saw that figure, I thought it was an exaggeration. I no longer think it's an exaggeration," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Vietnam veteran who's criticized how the war has been fought and funded.
We've lost this war. And now we're going to pay through the nose for this loss in broken men, broken equipment, a broken budget, and a broken military.
No comments:
Post a Comment