Chiefs of Staff: Change Course, Face Draft, or Lose Army

by: Brandon Friedman

Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:54:29 AM EDT


In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody sternly rebuked all those who've been blowing sunshine and spreading baseless happy talk for five years with regard to the war in Iraq.  And he was blunt--blunter than I've ever heard him before--about the crisis facing the Army.  He even went so far as to hint at the "D-word" in his prepared remarks:

Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies . . . Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.

Given the current theater demand for Army forces, we are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our Soldiers and Families.  Soldiers, Families, support systems, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time.  Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed.  Army support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.

 
And then he added the kicker:

If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.

When Cody says "this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force," he's really saying we have three options:

1. We can change course now and save everyone a lot of trouble.  

2. We can maintain our current course in Iraq and watch the Army disintegrate as it did during and after Vietnam.

3. We can institute the Draft.

The adjective "All-Volunteer" is the key part of the statement.  He's implying that if the force were not all-volunteer, then there would be no "significant risk."  As no sane officer would accept the disintegration of the Army, Cody is saying that if we want to keep up this thing in Iraq, we're going to have to move toward instituting a draft.  It's that simple.

According to the Washington Post, he went on to testify:

"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.
::
The nation needs an airborne brigade, a heavy brigade and a Stryker brigade ready for "full-spectrum operations," Cody said, "and we don't have that today."

These comments, however, were neither made in a vacuum, nor are they random.  In fact, they follow closely on the heels of comments made by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen last week, when he met with President Bush:

If the current round of fighting subsides and the U.S. withdrawals from Iraq go ahead as planned, Mullen says, he's exploring the idea of shifting troops to Afghanistan - an effort that he says is vastly under resourced.

"So, should we be in a position where more troops are removed from Iraq, the possibility of sending additional troops there - where we need them, clearly - certainly it's a possibility. But it's really going to be based on the availability of troops. We don't have troops. . .sitting on the shelf, ready to go."

In less than a week now, the Army Vice Chief of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both expressed to Congress and the President that there are simply no more troops available to keep up the current pace of operations.  And they've both implied that the "All-Volunteer Force" has reached the limits of its capability.  I'd call that a pattern.  And I'd also call it the first step toward giving the civilian leadership the ultimatum it apparently needs hear.  

These comments are a not-so-subtle challenge from the military to President Bush and the Congress: Either get us the fuck out of here, or send help.
Brandon Friedman :: Chiefs of Staff: Change Course, Face Draft, or Lose Army
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Chiefs of Staff: Change Course, Face Draft, or Lose Army | 28 comments
Brandon (0.00 / 0)
You 'Really' should consider becoming an Author!!!

There's a Great flare there for the perspective.

Actually me thinks you've got Another Great Book ready to hit the puter keys.

Yours, along with some of the other writings here, have been hitting the points needed to be seen and heard. I've sent a number on to others, mostly Veterans.

Great Work Folks!!

Oh and on Movies, this for everyone of OIF and OEF, Welcome to the Club, wonder who'll be the 'Rambo' of these Fiasco's!!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

Ha ha. Thanks, man. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Fingers crossed . . . (0.00 / 0)
that somebody is actually listening.  It is heartening though, that some people are paying attention in this Administration.
One answer. (0.00 / 0)

The draft is a bad idea. Staying the course is also a bad answer. That means the only answer that is worth anything is.

1. We can change course now and save everyone a lot of trouble.  

Yeah, I think that's what they're really (0.00 / 0)
trying to say.  They're using the threat of a draft to scare the politicians, which is good.  It'll be interesting to see if they follow through.
[ Parent ]
the draft is a... (0.00 / 0)
good idea.  
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
But it would be a political death sentence to anyone who voted for it.  IMHO, a draft is the only way that the average American will give a shit about what is going on around the world, or how our military is used.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Keep in mind... (4.00 / 2)
...Some of those in office deserve a political 'death sentence,' for keeping us on the current course with no plans to expand the military to meet the operational needs.

 Even if we do pull out of Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan, I am convinced that the Army (and the USMC) will be forced to spend at least a decade in rebuilding. The "Hollow Army" threat is very real now, and we may realistically need to supplement our forces with a short, limited draft.

 

[ Parent ]
The Army isn't looking so good.... (0.00 / 0)
...from where I'm sitting.  The fact that I see Gramps, the guy on his 4th tour, and many army billets being filled by other branches reinforces that "hollow" analogy.
[ Parent ]
Political death sentence... (4.00 / 1)
...most definitely.  But do we need more politicians who are going to just pander to lameass special interest groups, or can someone make the tough decisions.  I mean what the hell are we paying these people for?
[ Parent ]
I disagree. (0.00 / 0)

 I wouldn't want to serve on the frontlines with a bunch of young kids that didn't want to be in uniform, let alone in combat.

 It is hard enough dealing with the ones that want to be there.

[ Parent ]
I see your point (0.00 / 0)
But, I think the greater majority of the troops in Iraq don't want to be there.  And I'm not just talking about the IRR guys and those who have been stop-lossed.  So we already have that problem, even within an "all volunteer" force.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Which brings us back to... (0.00 / 0)
1. We can change course now and save everyone a lot of trouble.  
[ Parent ]
The difference between... (0.00 / 0)

someone that wants to be in the Military and not in Iraq and someone who doesnt want to be in the Military and Not in Iraq is huge.

The first person at least will do their jobs as best as they can while griping about the mission. The second will do less than a no legged dog.

[ Parent ]
lol (0.00 / 0)
I can't get the visual of the no legged dog out of my head.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama
[ Parent ]
Well, yes and no . . . (4.00 / 3)
The downside of the draft, as pointed out by Brian and many others in the volunteer force, is that we would rather not serve on the line with folks who do not want to be there. Much of this stems from Vietnam, where the draft became a focal point for opposition to the war and the difficulty of leading units composed primarily of conscripts. I don't know what it was like to be drafted since I enlisted and in my first tour there, as far as I remember, there were no draftees in my outfit. Second tour, I worked with outfits that had many draftees though my own did not.

Anyway, the difficulty that I see with conscripts is in wars of choice. Vietnam was such a war and so is the current bullshit in Iraq. Both were characterized as existential struggles when, in fact, neither were. And therein lies the rub. It's a whole lot easier for politicians to use an all volunteer force in a war of choice than it would be to use a force where at least some portion of the strength to be committed to the fight are conscripts. The last true existential struggle in which this nation participated, WWII, could not have been "won" without large numbers of conscripts. Many units were almost entirely draftees. Nonetheless, they fought bravely and well because everyone accepted that defeating Germany and Japan was indeed existential.

You can't get around the fact that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines will always bitch about whatever they feel like bitching about regardless of how they entered the service, whether or not they signed on the dotted line of their own free will. It becomes much easier to lead them when they believe, as Jim Webb said in his rebuttal to Flightsuit's '06 State of the Union address, that the politicians would " . . . guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it."

I think we know all too well what the guarantees of politicians can be worth. Nonetheless, the existence of a draft prior to the invasion of Iraq and the likelihood that conscripts would be in combat in it probably would have produced more significant public debate in the run up. It might not have prevented it from happening (the draft prior to Vietnam did not keep it from happening) given the skill with which the administration manipulated the public's fear after 9/11. At least more questions would have been asked. To me, that's the value of a draft in an era where presidents have given themselves near imperial power to do what they want, when they want, with the blood and treasure of the nation.

[ Parent ]
I think the draft would be a GREAT (0.00 / 0)
idea.  It would boggle the mind to see how quickly we leave these places if the average citizen had to take some party in the fight.  Who knows, maybe a few of these politicians kids and young chicken-hawks might have to do something meaningful for their country. I would only recommend that NO waivers be given for school or benign medical conditions.  If you can have Soldiers over here that have had to put off going to school of have had metal dug out of there brain, then you can have someone with "Rush Limbaugh" disease here to.  See how they enjoy this "top level" medical care.
[ Parent ]
Here was the best idea ever! (0.00 / 0)
Wonder what happened to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Barring this, the only good idea is to get out of Iraq. I agree, a draft is not going to help. The only reason I'd want a draft is because I want some of the punks who tout the war in Iraq to have to fight it. But they won't be good soldiers and it won't really do the military any good to have more cannon fodder. The military needs professionals. (The way it was before Iraq.)

PS-- and don't take that "cannon fodder" comment the wrong way. (0.00 / 0)
Not saying the people fighting in Iraq are cannon fodder. I'm saying they've been used that way. Our all-volunteer military was the finest professional military in the world. It's unbelievable to me that the people who purport to appreciate that fact have allowed this administration to use it this way. It's like taking a set of finely-honed steel cutlery and handing it out to be used as box cutters.  
[ Parent ]
I would also... (0.00 / 0)
...say its like having your cake, and eating to.
[ Parent ]
Draft???? (0.00 / 0)
My friend ask me what would happen if bush got back in office the second time.  And I said its only gong to get worse in this country.
And all the lies about not having a draft is bullshit.  When are people going to wake up and realize that the republicans only care about there oil and power.  They do not care how many people they have to murder to get what they want.  If McCain  gets in to the white house the people in the military will suffer more then everybody else.  And so will there loved ones.  Its so sad that all this killing has to go on and on for oil and power.  How much good would all this money for wars do for the good of  mankind.  We may never know in this country.  
Wow... (0.00 / 0)
...the brass has talked about this before, but this time it seems more serious.  As a zero, I feel kind of ambivalent about a draft since it would crush morale, people entrusted with your life would be doing a half-ass job, and there's always the off-chance that I'd get fragged or something.  I think it would be better if senior leaders in the elite class stopped schlepping off military service onto everyone else and realized that the military is supposed to be representative of the nation.
I really think (4.00 / 1)
the entire military, with the exception ot the Marines, needs a real overhaul. The CIA and the rest of the intelligence agencies could use one too. And, for God sakes, can we do something about the utterly arrogance permeated, ultra PC environment in Washington?????
Congress needs an overhaul too! (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
they sure do.  
[ Parent ]
no draft unless full mob (0.00 / 0)
my perspective is that we would have to go to a full mobilization of ALL reserve units before there could be a valid reason for a draft.

We all are aware of the metaphor used by schoomaker about the water container with the spigot near the top vs the bottom.

near the top are all of us who been in the task forces that have been back and forth several times, the other 3/4s of that container underneath the spigot represents those working in the non deployable billets. TRADOC, Army Field offices, or other institutional entities that deal with the administration and logistics of daily army business. or the units in the USAR that have not been tasked, ( TOE deployable units vs TDA)

In the reserves we actually have whole units that have not deployed yet.  the bulk of those individuals are in the training Battalions.

In theory a full mobilization of all the reserve assets would create sufficient manpower resource to create additional brigade task forces underneath a division command.

The full mob of assets would require at least 6 months of cross training etc, to shake the units out, but the army would get its  deployable divisions.  This is a reasonable expectation because the modelcurrently in place for USARNG, and USAR now has units performing home station training during the "Battle Assemblies" a year out before their activation date.  with validation training following thru for 6 weeks at their respective Mobilization site  (ie Ft Dix, Bragg, atterbury)

These available resources form the base for my belief they do not want a draft, they may hint at it, but they have to many resoources in uniform to do so.

If they are not willing to do a full mob, which demonstrates to the nation the seriousness of the situation, then they will not have a suitable reason to bring a draft.

Loddy doddy everybody in, or everybody out..

not everybody in, then the MIC Complex is only interested in drawing this out for another decade, so we need to retrograde out of Iraq.

sorry for the jargon, obviously I'm still in, feel free to have one of your editors clean it up

OEF 02-03

A full MOB may not work. (4.00 / 1)
Given the logistical requirements for fully training and equipping the level of personnel that would be needed, you would require a significant infusion of funds for the current budget.  That in it's self would raise questions.  You would also have to take into account the "mission focused" training that would need to be conducted.  While it would not take a great deal of time to get these units up to combat standards, they would be useless for other missions since the 6-month window could not encompass full spectrum operations. Then you would have to take into account the lack of availability of Reserves not only in the current fight but in the states as well.  Essentially, leaving the country with nothing ore than the domestic law enforcement and first responders in the event of and emergency or attack.  

I know it is a little out there but the discussions of the "draft" and the word draft need to be used.  After 6 years, over 4000 souls, countless families, and untold Billions, it will be impossible for the general public to accept that they must now have to sacrifice for the "war" that they have bought into.  I think the change in tone from the Support the Troops crowd (but just don't send me) would be miraculous ;-)

[ Parent ]
Good to see you here (0.00 / 0)
And don't worry about the jargon.  Almost everyone here is an OIF/OEF vet, and a lot of they guys/gals that post here are still in.

OIF 03-04

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

[ Parent ]
Chiefs of Staff: Change Course, Face Draft, or Lose Army | 28 comments
VetVoice on Social Media
Follow rockrichard on Twitter

VoteVets.org on Facebook
    		•
    VetVoice Recommends

    "The War I Always Wanted,"
    By Brandon Friedman

    "The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic." --Military Times

    "Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature." --Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire

    Buy The War I Always Wanted here.

    "A Time To Lead,"
    By General (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark

    "A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration." --General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State

    "This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life." --Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)

    Buy A Time to Lead here.

    "Love My Rifle More Than You,"
    By Kayla Williams

    "Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq." --Booklist

    ". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle." --Publishers Weekly

    ". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq." --Bookmarks Magazine

    Buy Love My Rifle More Than You here.

    "How to Break a Terrorist,"
    By Matthew Alexander

    "...a riveting, fast-paced account that reads like a first-rate thriller." --Publisher's Weekly

    " ...an absorbing behind-the-scenes look at the secret intelligence war within a war." --Military.com

    Buy How to Break a Terrorist here.
    Search

    Advanced Search
    RSS Feed Links

    Subscribe to VetVoice in a feed reader!

    Subscribe to VetVoice by Email!
    Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
    Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
    Menu

    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:


    Forget your username or password?

    Front Page Writers
    PTSD Resources
    TBI Resources
    IRR Information
    Casualty Reports
    VA Information
    Support the Troops
    Veteran Candidates We Support
    Congressional Committees
    Contact Your Elected Leaders
    Sites We Like

    Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.

    Site Design: Articulated Man

    VoteVets Political Action and Vote Vets Action Fund are separate organizations.

    Powered by: SoapBlox