CommunityEditor
01-14-2010, 12:35 PM
The Army on three occasions over the past five years has increased active-duty end-strength to meet ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lesson learned: The Army was too small to simultaneously fight on two fronts. That took an incredible toll on troops and their families, who endured multiple war tours of up to 15 months at a stretch. Others paid for it by being forced to serve on “stop-loss” beyond their terms of obligated service. Meanwhile, getting the Army closer to the right size cost billions and took years.
The addition of a total of 65,000 soldiers resulted in today’s authorized end-strength of 547,400 in uniform. In July, Congress has authorized yet another temporary increase, of 22,000 troops.
Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, concerned about an “era of persistent” conflict projected to continue to 2028, if not longer, is considering whether to seek to make the 22,000 permanent.
Given the grim outlook and the stress on today’s force, he should ask Congress for the increase — and lawmakers should oblige.
The Army still struggles to give soldiers a year at home between deployments, and the burnout places a huge strain on the troops and their families. Divorce rates have risen, and some troops struggle with PTSD and other mental, physical and emotional problems.
Moreover, maintaining a robust and ready force would provide maximum readiness and be more cost-efficient than holding numbers down or even cutting troops for some perceived savings, only to have to spend billions to recruit, train and retain tens of thousands of soldiers when hostilities flare.
Though the Army is scheduled to fully withdraw its 60,000 troops in Iraq by the end of next year, it is increasing to more than 65,000 the number of soldiers headed to Afghanistan. And there is no telling yet what other front might emerge in this era of persistent conflict.
It would be unfair to force soldiers and families to continue to sacrifice as they have for so long now. A bigger Army would provide more home time for the soldiers and more battlefield resources.
The troops and the nation need a bigger Army.
Lesson learned: The Army was too small to simultaneously fight on two fronts. That took an incredible toll on troops and their families, who endured multiple war tours of up to 15 months at a stretch. Others paid for it by being forced to serve on “stop-loss” beyond their terms of obligated service. Meanwhile, getting the Army closer to the right size cost billions and took years.
The addition of a total of 65,000 soldiers resulted in today’s authorized end-strength of 547,400 in uniform. In July, Congress has authorized yet another temporary increase, of 22,000 troops.
Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, concerned about an “era of persistent” conflict projected to continue to 2028, if not longer, is considering whether to seek to make the 22,000 permanent.
Given the grim outlook and the stress on today’s force, he should ask Congress for the increase — and lawmakers should oblige.
The Army still struggles to give soldiers a year at home between deployments, and the burnout places a huge strain on the troops and their families. Divorce rates have risen, and some troops struggle with PTSD and other mental, physical and emotional problems.
Moreover, maintaining a robust and ready force would provide maximum readiness and be more cost-efficient than holding numbers down or even cutting troops for some perceived savings, only to have to spend billions to recruit, train and retain tens of thousands of soldiers when hostilities flare.
Though the Army is scheduled to fully withdraw its 60,000 troops in Iraq by the end of next year, it is increasing to more than 65,000 the number of soldiers headed to Afghanistan. And there is no telling yet what other front might emerge in this era of persistent conflict.
It would be unfair to force soldiers and families to continue to sacrifice as they have for so long now. A bigger Army would provide more home time for the soldiers and more battlefield resources.
The troops and the nation need a bigger Army.