Does this article send the right message of where the Army is headed? - The Army is broken!

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 20:55:16 -0400

Does this article send the right message of where the Army is headed? - The Army is broken!

Found this very interesting article that shows the direction of the Army as we have seen it transition throughout out a short historical period and from the perspective of a warrior - one of our own. Thought I would share it with the RP Community. Its nothing new, and we have been talking about this in other discussions, but I still found it very interesting and very true! Just for your read!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/15/the-army-is-broken/

By Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. He originally wrote this for The Washington Post.

--
Last month, Gen. Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, and Gen. Mark Milley, his successor, testified to the difficulties faced by the Army. I’d like to make the same points by telling a story.

When I was a boy, tonsillitis was a dangerous illness. In 1952, it kept me in Tokyo General Hospital for weeks. I shared a cramped ward with dozens of soldiers horribly maimed in Korea. The hospital had only one movie theater. I remember watching a Western sandwiched between bandage- and plaster-wrapped bodies. I remember the antiseptic smells, the cloud of cigarette smoke and the whispers of young men still traumatized by the horrors of the war they had just left.

My dad came from Korea to visit me, and I recall our conversations vividly. At the time he was operations officer for the 2nd Engineer Battalion. He told me how poorly his men were prepared for war. Many had been killed or captured by the North Koreans. During the retreat from the Yalu River, some of his soldiers were in such bad physical shape that they dropped exhausted along the road to wait to be taken captive.

“We have no sergeants, son,” he told me, shaking his head, “and without them we are no longer an Army.”

In the early ‘70s, I was the same age as my Korean-era dad. I had just left Vietnam only to face another broken Army. My barracks were at war. I carried a pistol to protect myself from my own soldiers. Many of the soldiers were on hard drugs. The barracks were racial battlegrounds pitting black against white. Again, the Army had broken because the sergeants were gone. By 1971, most were either dead, wounded or had voted with their feet to get away from such a devastated institution.

I visited Baghdad in 2007 as a guest of Gen. David Petraeus. Before the trip I had written a column forecasting another broken Army, but it was clear from what Petraeus showed me that the Army was holding on and fighting well in the dangerous streets of Baghdad. Such a small and overcommitted force should have broken after so many serial deployments to that hateful place. But Petraeus said that his Army was different. It held together because junior leaders were still dedicated to the fight. To this day, I don’t know how they did it.

Sadly, the Army that stayed cohesive in Iraq and Afghanistan even after losing 5,000 dead is now being broken again by an ungrateful, ahistorical and strategically tone-deaf leadership in Washington.

The Obama administration just announced a 40,000 reduction in the Army’s ranks. But the numbers don’t begin to tell the tale. Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train; Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently said that the Army will not have enough money for most soldiers to train above the squad level this year. Soldiers need to fight with new weapons; in the past four years, the Army has canceled 20 major programs, postponed 125 and restructured 124. The Army will not replace its Reagan-era tanks, infantry carriers, artillery and aircraft for at least a generation. Soldiers stay in the ranks because they serve in a unit ready for combat; fewer than a third of the Army’s combat brigades are combat ready. And this initial 40,000 soldier reduction is just a start. Most estimates from Congress anticipate that without lifting the budget sequestration that is driving this across-the-board decline, another 40,000 troops will be gone in about two years.

But it’s soldiers who tell the story. After 13 years of war, young leaders are voting with their feet again. As sergeants and young officers depart, the institution is breaking for a third time in my lifetime. The personal tragedies that attended the collapse of a soldier’s spirit in past wars are with us again. Suicide, family abuse, alcohol and drug abuse are becoming increasingly more common.

To be sure, the nation always reduces its military as wars wind down. Other services suffer reductions and shortages. But only the Army breaks. Someone please tell those of us who served why the service that does virtually all the dying and killing in war is the one least rewarded.

My grandson is a great kid. He’s about the same age I was when I was recovering at Tokyo General. Both of his parents served as Army officers, so it’s no wonder that in school he draws pictures of tanks and planes while his second-grade classmates draw pictures of flowers and animals. The other day he drew a tank just for me and labeled it proudly: “Abrams Tank!”

Well, sadly, if he follows in our footsteps, one day he may be fighting in an Abrams tank. His tank will be 60 years old by then.

At the moment I’d rather he go to law school.

The Army is broken

Sadly, the Army that stayed cohesive in Iraq and Afghanistan even after losing 5,000 dead is now being broken again by an ungrateful, ahistorical and strategically tone-deaf leadership in Washington. The Obama administration just announced a 40,000 reduction in the Army’s ranks. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently said that the Army will not have enough money for most soldiers to train above the squad level this year.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Aug 15 at 2015 9:06 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:30 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I have read a few of his articles and they all seem to be about something negative with the Army. IMO he has an agenda that he is pushing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 9:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:06:40 -0400

I think someone else posted this article, I've read it before. I've heard stories about the old school Army with it's gangs and drug problems. I don't see us as headed that way. Just because we are drawing the force down doesn't mean we are hollowing it out. We are using QSP and QMP boards to drop the lowest performers and those who got in trouble. Basically, promotion will become more competitive and slower, like it was before the war. Recruiting and retention goals will be decreased.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 9:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:12:34 -0400

The Army isnt broken, we need to refocus on conventional warfare and do a better job taking care of our Soldiers.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 15 at 2015 9:25 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:25:44 -0400

It's a good article, but there is A LOT of nostalgia tinting in it. One example that stuck with me was:

"Soldiers stay in the Army because they love to go into the field and train;"

That assertion shows that emotion may be clouding things. Soldiers stay for as many reasons as there are soldiers. Some do it for duty, some for family, some because they enjoy the People, and yes some do it to train in the field, but to make a definitive statement like the above is just not true (by omission).

Though I agree the Army is going to take some especially hard hits over the coming years because of the drawdown, I don't think it will break it. I don't think something as simple as personnel shortfalls, or reduction in resources could break the Army. I think this article highlights that the author has transitioned from hope to despair.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 9:26 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:26:10 -0400

Intersting read, but I think the Army will adapt and overcome obstacles it faces. It won't be easy that is for sure. But the will of the American fighting man or women is never broken The organization might be but not the individual's.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 15 at 2015 9:46 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 21:46:53 -0400

This is a cycle that has always been and always be. When the Army draws down, it is rather precipitous thus decreasing our readiness. What we do in war at the start will trickle back to the US where we have to increase and improve training.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 15 at 2015 10:08 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:08:15 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs I realize that we can do things better and I get that some investments have not been made in main battle tanks and CAS aircraft, but these are matters of leadership. The Army is not broken, we are smaller and have less capability but we have many combat veterans and with permission by the CnC and some leadership we will crush ISIS.
I have four children, I will be proud for any of them to join any of the military services. I have faith that we, Americans, do the right thing. It make take more time than we hope for but we eventually do the right thing.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 15 at 2015 10:22 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:22:05 -0400

The Army isn't broken. The electorate is broken. They are electing politicians who promise to deliver the pork. And you know who loses in this game of "stealing from Peter to pay Paul, don't you? Yes, it's very shortsighted...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 15 at 2015 10:29 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:29:30 -0400

The fact that politicians are supporting a reduction in troops, less funding which affects training and equipment doesn't mean the Army is broken. This is a reflection of politics and affects the military's readiness ability, it is not a reflection of the spirit of the Army, the quality of our members, or our fitness.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Aug 15 at 2015 11:15 PM

SFC Joseph Weber — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:15:14 -0400

I felt young leaders, especially officers, were voting with their feet in 2003. I am sure the spirit of our Soldiers will weather this but definitely have some fears for the future of my Army.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 16 at 2015 12:29 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 00:29:20 -0400

Elections have consequences.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 16 at 2015 1:07 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:07:43 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; I wouldn't say "The Army is broken." but I might go along with "The Army is being stressed near its breaking point.".

If the Army "loses its Sergeants" then it is REALLY in a bad way.

If the Army "loses its Sergeants and Junior Officers" then it is approaching moribund.

You have to have the Sergeants to "motivate and keep under control" the young pups who they outrank and to "train and keep under control" the young pups who command them.

You have to have the Junior Officers to inspire and drive the troops into doing the necessary stuff that no one in their right mind would do, under conditions no one in their right mind would accept.

What the "pointy hats" like you and me are for is to see that the actual lethal weapon that is the Army is aimed in the right direction and has as many of the best tools to do their job that we can provide them with. (Of course, without us "pointy hats" you'd probably find the whole of the Army down at 'Sid's Bar and Knock Shop'.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Aug 16 at 2015 6:59 AM

SSgt Terry P. — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:59:34 -0400

The spirit i see in the young troops of today indicates to me that the military is not broken,only the politics concerning it.I have witnessed in my lifetime the ups and downs of the attitude of the military and attitudes toward the military, but the spirit of the military is still there.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 16 at 2015 7:23 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:23:49 -0400

Sir, the article tells the historical truth with some pointed exaggeration. We go through cycles of war, post-war and re-readiness similar to our own training cycles - execute-AAR-plan. Personnel drawdowns and aging equipment are nothing new and I'm not sure how you recover the deficits.

It costs money to mobilize and fight - can't be doing the amount of R&D necessary for the next generation systems with troops on the battlefield. Then again, we did see the emergence of quite a few advances in IED survivable vehicles and IED detecting/defeating technologies since 9/11 introduced onto the battlefield. The DoD procurement process alone is a bear that needs overhauling. If anyone has ever seen "The Pentagon Wars" It's not that far from the truth. The way the system works and the length of time it takes to go from inception to the battlefield allows for major battlefield systems like the Abrams & Bradley to be outdated when they finally makes it to the troops. Then again, B52s are still flying. Each time we go through these phases, the face of warfare also changes and the doctrine writers are running out of ink just to keep up. The Fulda gap scenario, OOTWA, desert warfare, unmanned vehicles and drones - how things change.

Now from the troop perspective - nothing new either, You wind down from a war you drop your troop strength. This last 10 years has been unprecedented with the number of deployments - probably equal to the amount of time WWII soldiers spent in Europe and Asia when all totaled up. Being in a combat zone, being deployed and redeployed takes it's toll mentally and physically on all soldiers. It's no wonder that SMs are "voting with their feet" With no draft or mandatory service obligation, how is the country expected to make up the loss - though a 40,000 troop drawdown would seem to cover that to some degree. True we tend to lose those in the most needed positions with the most institutional knowledge - our NCOs and company grade officers, but can you blame them? Most have 2 or more deployments and the future will bring more of the same. They've done their time in a war that isn't resolving much. The enemy is not surrendering and no one is drawing lines on maps to come to a cessation of combat.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Aug 16 at 2015 8:01 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:01:20 -0400

It's got some manning issues and smaller Army. Coupled with more Global War On Terror issues.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 16 at 2015 10:02 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:02:25 -0400

First step is admitting you have a problem..

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 10:30 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:30:21 -0400

Sounds about spot on to me

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 16 at 2015 11:15 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:15:53 -0400

I disagree that the Army or any other branch is "broken", but if you want to discuss the leadership at the DOD and up, now that is another matter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 8:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:24:09 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, No Sir! The Army is not broken. What's broken is our lack of leadership. The corruption in Washington, the cowards in Washington, the lack of support for our Military forces. If I worked for a company run like Washington is, I would quit and find me another job. I'll never leave America. I've seen too much blood and guts shed for our honor, even if the liberals think it's unnecessary to go to war. It's not the Military's fault we're labelled like that. It's our freaking governments fault. As our presidents term is ending, I'm sick and tired of those damned labels being given to our armed forces. Give us some slack in the leash and we'll show America we're not broken.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 17 at 2015 10:57 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:57:43 -0400

I see what the MG was speaking of, but I don't believe it completely. The Army is never "broken" but is a state of disarray. Yes if you loose NCO's, you're loosing a valuable resource, but that opens a path for that junior troop to show he can lead the way. So they have to be given that chance. Loosing the numbers we are is what it is, and I don't think any president change can fix that, nor can Congress. In regards to the modernization of items, we don't effectively use most of what we have. MRAPS were great in Afghanistan, but are limited in other roles. Tanks are much the same way. The wars we fought before aren't the wars we're fighting now. No uniforms, no real front lines, no clear cut and defined enemy. These are the battles of the future IMO. And to combat that military leaders need to be proactive in what they deem nessicary for the mission vs what would look cool to have. Our civilian leaders need to understand real threats, listen to those in the know, and adjust accordingly with the fiscal strings to support our mission along with supporting their states/districts. But MY Army will NEVER be broken. Not in my lifetime or anyone that can read this posts lifetime.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 19 at 2015 11:02 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:02:21 -0400

History is replete with counterinsurgencies but we are stuck with COIN.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2015 5:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 17:12:39 -0400

It is a broken system. There are so many young NCOs that are getting out even though they have so much potential. They are tired of the way things are going in the military. There is no such thing as career satisfaction. Young officers are unfairly placed into jobs that they don't want and probably shouldn't be in. How does a college student majoring in underwater basket weaving with a 4.0 but weighs 260lbs get infantry, and then a foreign language major with a 3.1 because they failed college chemistry get branched chemical? It's because we are a number. It's abundantly clear that the only people that care are the individuals. There needs to be something more to keep young NCOs and Comapny Grade Officers in the army.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Aug 23 at 2015 7:13 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:13:35 -0400

You would think, as much education politicians and upper leadership have, they would know enough about History to avoid this situation. But, the current political landscape, they have the Pentagon they want, a bunch of yes men who think the art of war can be done by counting beans or making rules that are completely insane. After WW1 the military was drawn down to a point where they were combat ineffective by the time WW2 broke out. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and invaded Philippines we were using vintage equipment that was obsolete. We had our asses handed to us. After WW2, we down sized again, and N Korea rolled tanks, and we had Task Force Smith, and the blood bath of the Pusan Perimeter. Vietnam, the politicians and the media tied our hands in Vietnam. We were not allowed to pursue the enemy into neighboring countries. General Giap, of the North Vietnamese Army even stated that if we would have pursued them into Cambodia and Laos we could have won the war in Vietnam and decimated their ranks further, to the point they would have been ineffective as a force. The commanders who saw combat in Vietnam, saw the effects of weak upper leadership and the media, gave us success in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War. Then we went back to the weak upper leadership, and a Kinder Gentler Army. Again politics were involved. The peaceniks are in full force, our upper leadership is for shit, more worried about tattoos and PT belts in a combat zone than actually getting the mission accomplished. The media has run amuck with portraying soldiers as being all bad, and those poor people in the Taliban and ISIS. Schwartzkauph and Powell had it right, keep the media away. And let soldiers do their jobs

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 23 at 2015 7:38 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 19:38:05 -0400

We are fighting a war of attrition with the insurgents. If they don't lose they win. We are treating a war time army as a peace time army. It does not make sense.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 24 at 2015 12:08 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:08:27 -0400

Maybe it is a matter of realigning the system iaw "needs of the Army."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2015 3:37 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Aug 2015 03:37:38 -0400

All that he says is true. More attention is paid to what women can do, than what anyone can do. More time is spent listening to people talk about what they are not allowed to talk about, than listening to training instructions. More awards are given for being present, than for accomplishing anything. More people are departing to start fresh, than staying to fix it, and those who would choose to fix it, are seldom in positions to do so. Scarce is the unit that has more juniors than seniors, rare is the training that prepares fighters to fight. While standards are not unheard of, they are often on the wrong things. I wish it were not so, as I prepare to leave the service myself, I've had many occasions to be proud of those with whom I served, and what we accomplished. But I have also seen the worst elements rise easily, uncaught and unrecognized for whom and what they were when leaders were not watching. I've watched as people who literally did nothing but show up, walked away with significant awards, while those who did the work, had to fight to keep their own from being downgraded by those they made successful.

The NCO corps is the backbone of the Army, that is what they have always told us...and what most, if not all of us of all ranks have worked so hard to do is to keep that backbone strong. Now though...it appears as if the goal is to break that back, by trimming all the wrong places.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 5:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 05:23:02 -0400

As a leader I see it everyday. (Some not All) NCO's Losing their power to enforce standards and taking care of Soldiers,(Some not All) Officers too worried about the next OER and not being involved in the day to day issues and now working with the NCOs as a team. Too much individuality. Not enough cohesion. Too many of your Steller Soldiers either being forced out of the Army due to MEB or, Retirement, RCP, Poison Leadership.....and that's just a start. For those who sit on the thrown looking down everything looks good, for those of us in the trenches not so much. just a thought.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 29 at 2015 4:31 PM

SGT Scott Bell — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:31:18 -0400

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2016 1:18 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 19 May 2016 01:18:05 -0400

That is a tough read. Time will tell.

Response by Col Rebecca Lorraine made May 26 at 2016 6:30 PM

Col Rebecca Lorraine — Thu, 26 May 2016 18:30:06 -0400

When I stood up the AE Squadron for strategic aeromedical evacuation, (2003) we flew in the C-141. About 50% of our missions were delayed and the C-141 was retired after I returned home. I had flown in the same aircraft when as an adolescent I was evacuated from Egypt in 1972 with all the Vietnam casualties. This equipment is old, but if well maintained it may not be a Cadillac but it does the job. The crews that keep these things operating are being asked to work miracles! We do need new equipment, but we need solid leadership and good NCOs to ensure the mission is accomplished!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2016 9:39 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 May 2016 21:39:58 -0400

As painful to read as it is to live through...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 27 at 2016 1:55 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 27 May 2016 13:55:04 -0400

When I arrived in Vietnam I was handed a set of E5 Sergeant's stripes and told to pin them on the most likely candidate. There weren't enough sergeants to go around. Thus, at least from my perspective, this story rings true. From what I've studied of history, it rings true in all previous wars: From the Revolution to WWII and beyond. It's a testament to the courage and adaptability of American youth that they somehow acquire the skills, leaders emerge, and our makeshift Army does well. However, looking at our youth today lurking in safe zones, I am left to wonder. Will we come through another test as well again?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made May 27 at 2016 2:06 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 27 May 2016 14:06:16 -0400

Elections have consequences. The nation elects the left at its peril.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made May 27 at 2016 9:14 PM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Fri, 27 May 2016 21:14:55 -0400

How do I answer a article like this on Memorial Day COL Mikel J. Burroughs? While reading this all I could think about were all of our fallen vet's and what they gave to give us what we have today. Our current administration has totally abandoned our troops and for that matter they have left all of us! I cannot believe what 7 1/2 years have done to this once "Great Nation" but we, one and all, will bring it back! This I promise!

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made May 28 at 2016 7:12 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 28 May 2016 07:12:27 -0400

We need to step back and see that more then likely we are being setup for either a take over, or the politicians are trying to turn us into an isolationist country again.

Response by SGT Michael Thorin made May 28 at 2016 10:14 PM

SGT Michael Thorin — Sat, 28 May 2016 22:14:05 -0400

I agree with this, but morale is also negatively impacted when politicians send us with all the equipment we need to fight and win a war, but then tell us to be "less violent."

The Russians have no ROE's or RUF's when they fight. The insurgents, Taliban, ISIS, ISIL, and any other acronym you might think of all refuse to let "public opinion" run their wars.

Now, let's look at this from a World View.

The United States had the strictest ROE's and RUF's of any military in the Middle East.

We liberated Kuwait, and saved an entire Country from falling. Were we looked at as heroes? Only to the Kuwaiti's.

The rest of the world focused on how the US messed up by not forcing Sadam out the first time, and after just a couple of years, the United States was once again a Nation that did not finish a war that we did not start.

Now, over 14 years since 9-11, we live in a Nation where half of the citizens think that we should have never dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

They have also forgotten of how scared they were after 9-11, and how much they praised the military and law enforcement. They now say we "overreacted" even though the majority, at the time, wanted nothing but blood and revenge.

Our Nation and its politicians want our military to be a pack of 100 pound Doberman pinchers guarding a junk yard. They buy them, train them to kill. Make them angry, and make them crave the flesh and blood of anyone who would challenge them. They make them the most dangerous, highly trained monsters who could defeat any attacker.

After all of this money and training, they get the Dobermans declawed, put muzzles on them, and keep them on leashes, because the lot owner's insurance company will not cover him if the dogs bite or kill an intruder.

A long explanation, but until our politicians, lawyers and media leave us alone to fight and win, our military will always have this issue.

One last note: we used such restraint in this war on terror that we lost hundreds of soldiers because of these restricted ROE's and RUF's.

With all of that restraint, and all of the money we paid to these countries, we are still looked at as the bad guys who destabilized a region.

So, we will have terrible and damaging press either way, so why don't we try bad press with a win this time?

I would like to see how it would turn out.

Why spend millions of dollars to train and equip soldiers with all the high speed skills and newest, deadliest weaponry and then tell them to play nice and don't hurt anyone.

That's all I got to say about that.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2016 12:23 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 May 2016 12:23:33 -0400

From my perspective as a veteran the drawdown is normal occurrence after being bolstered previously by war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Where the Army is taking the hit is by removing by way of QMP, MEB's and what means it can, is the NCO Corps. Soon there will be an Army of NCO's not battle ready to lead into any wars in the near future. My concern is the BACKBONE of the Army is broken, with all PC and catering to the individual. Hell let the Army just put the next war to vote before the POTUS and Congress commit!

Response by Kim Bolen RN CCM ACM made May 29 at 2016 3:01 PM

Kim Bolen RN CCM ACM — Sun, 29 May 2016 15:01:02 -0400

Sir,

Awesome Article, still rings true.

I can only say that which I have been told and based on that experience only, I would have to say Yes. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines require the best tools, I am told they do not have them.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made May 30 at 2016 1:28 AM

CPT Pedro Meza — Mon, 30 May 2016 01:28:23 -0400

The issue of the size of the military during wars vs after wars is always dependent on budgets and favors which I see as humans vs equipment and lets face facts congress/politicians will cut the human force in favor of the equipment that favors their supporters.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made May 30 at 2016 1:59 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Mon, 30 May 2016 13:59:19 -0400

This was an excellent read and paints an accurate picture of the troubles plaguing the military as a whole.

I disagree with the author's statement that this is only an army occurrence. As a Marine I've seen the effects of good NCOs getting out or being forced out.

Due to the lack of bodies, we've got Junior Marines picking up with an 1100 cutting score. Just for the sake of having NCOs, we've got Marines put in leadership positions before they even know how to be a leader.

Then let's consider government waste. Whenever we hear someone talking about cutting the runaway defense budget, they always assume that means we'll stop fighting wars or stop buying ammo and armaments. But all of us who served know they'll cut 50,000 Junior troops before they scrap a 30 year old aircraft. But even that is still a bandaid. Between defense contracts that charge 200% markup on simple supply items, supply departments not approving requisitions for essential items, but at the end of the fiscal year, they'll go on spending splurges because if they don't use the full budget, the budget will be cut. It's ridiculous when I'll see brand new flat screen TVs, and new carpeting in offices, but I can't get toner for a printer.

We all see it. There's a lot of dead weight that's there simply to collect a paycheck. When I see Junior Marines being taught their MOS by a Marine who isn't even in the MOS, we've got problems. When I ask what the biggest problems in the shop are and they respond "lack of leadership, no supervision, lack of communication". This is what fresh faced boots to the fleet are seeing.

The ones who want to stay in are being forced out while the ones who should have been shown the door are kept in, probably promoted, left in leadership roles with no supervision. Our military is broken in bureaucracy and government spending.

Response by PO3 Chuck Wilkinson made Jun 1 at 2016 10:49 AM

PO3 Chuck Wilkinson — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 10:49:21 -0400

It's sad to see and hear what is happening to our military force as a whole. The whole Obama administration is making it very clear that they do not stand by our military. They would rather spend money on illegal aliens than supporting our military both active and veterans. It's just not the Army that is broken, our country as a whole is broken.

Response by MAJ Raymond Haynes made Jun 1 at 2016 12:57 PM

MAJ Raymond Haynes — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:57:47 -0400

Thank you COL Mikel J. Burroughs a very interesting article. I doubt the ability of this forum to discuss the issue in an unbiased fashion given the common background of it's members. I have always expressed my amazement in defense budget cuts, but we never seem to run out of welfare money. Perhaps a requirement that all children of congressional members be required to serve a 2 year military active duty tour, could shed some light on the subject. Just like any other large organization subject to the whims of the federal government, there will be ebbs and flows. I know that is no excuse, just an observation. I read a collection of writings from Field Marshal Erwin Rommel some years ago. Hitler was giving him grief for getting pushed back across Africa by the British and Americans, and said that his Army was in disarray. Rommel replied that all Armies are in disarray, "My only goal is to be in less disarray, than my enemy" This may not advance the discussion, just thought I would toss it out there.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 10 at 2016 2:23 PM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:23:36 -0400

Most are grateful that someone else is willing to serve so they don't have to...this is where the basic problem is. For those who do not give back, taking is all they know. For example, the current political quagmire...I believe You should have some "Service" time , not necessarily Military, in your background. Quite possibly, there are Veteran who would make productive, focused, and engaged politicians, as well.