http://www.politico.com/agenda/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-americans-are-joining-000005
When I was a commander in Iraq, many of my men were unfit for the battlefield. My unit needed them anyway.
By John Spencer, 12/15/15
When President Barack Obama announced that women would be eligible for combat roles in the military earlier this month, he stated “our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens.” Secretary of Defense Ash Carter echoed those thoughts: “Our force of the future must continue to benefit from the best people America has to offer … in the 21st century, that includes drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of people.”
This change is going to help the military in any number of ways: It’s a step toward greater fairness, and it makes a new talent pool available to combat positions. But before we get too complacent, the Army has another challenge in front of it that opening the door to women is just one small step toward solving: It is understaffed for the challenges it faces, and faces an even bigger recruiting struggle ahead.
The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking, leaving the Army at its smallest size in over 75 years and forcing units to rely on unstable and unprepared servicemen. That puts both our military troops and the country at risk.
In 2008, when I was an infantry company commander in charge of over 140 soldiers in Baghdad, I saw firsthand how the declining number of volunteers is hurting the military. Thirty-six of my men were forced to deploy even though their terms of service were up, a controversial military policy known as “stop loss” or the “back door draft.” To meet the bare minimum number of soldiers, my unit took men who were medically unfit to fight. I had soldiers that could not leave our compound because they were medically prohibited from wearing their body armor or classified as mentally unfit. I had soldiers taking anti-depression, sleeping, anxiety and other drugs. I had a mentally unstable private viciously attack his sergeant, causing lifelong damage, and multiple other problem soldiers that detracted from the combat performance of my unit. This was symptomatic throughout the Army.
The government’s current difficulty in assembling a full force dates to 1973, when the United States eliminated the draft and transitioned into an all-volunteer system. The major assumption undergirding that move was a belief that Americans would volunteer for military service when national security is at risk. But the past 14 years of war have proven that that assumption is wrong.
When the Army attempted to expand quickly to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, it struggled to recruit and retain enough soldiers fit for combat. The Army was forced to implement multiple policy changes to bring people into the army and to involuntarily keep those already serving. These changes included providing waivers to enlist high school dropouts, felons and others normally not qualified; increasing soldiers’ deployments from 12 to 15 months; and “stop loss.”
All of this is happening when the world is more unstable than at any point in recent memory. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) controls huge swaths of land and continues to commit mass atrocities, Iran is testing its ballistic missiles, China is building islands in the South China Sea, and Russia is facing off with Turkey. Faced with these threats, the Army must be ready to engage in multiple regions of the world at once. But by 2017, the Army will be the smallest it has been since 1940, with only 450,000 soldiers.
This problem is going to only get worse: The Department of Defense estimates that 71 percent of the roughly 34 million 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. today would fail to qualify based on the current enlistment criteria because of physical or mental health issues, low educational scores or major criminal convictions.
Of those who are qualified, many don’t want to join. A recent Washington Post survey found that 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds expressed support for using ground troops against ISIL. But 85 percent said they would “probably” or “definitely” not join the military. This is an alarming trend for an Army that relies on volunteers.
A small army incapable of expanding hurts our own capabilities and makes enemies less fearful of the U.S. military. If we want an Army that can expand quickly, we must recruit, train and develop a professional core of midgrade and senior officers and noncommissioned officers to which a group of junior enlisted volunteers can join. As the number of core officers shrinks, the risk that there won’t be enough volunteers in the future only increases.
While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements. To overcome the demographic challenges, the government must make a greater effort to recruit younger Americans by reaching out to high school students and those younger through programs like the Boy Scouts and the first lady’s “Let’s Move” program. Furthermore, the government should devote resources to persuading interested Americans to actually join the military. Right now, we spend a lot of time finding eligible volunteers and less time actually developing them.
Opening all combat jobs to women will also help ensure the Army has a full force of soldiers. But it won’t do that much: Just 10 percent of the military had previously been closed to women. A better solution is to mandate a minimum size for the Army — over 500,000 people — that can be expanded when needed. We also need to address the assumption behind the size of the Army. Dreams of fighting future wars through technological smart weapons like precision-guided missiles or drones or through limited engagements executed by Special Forces are unrealistic.
We still need a robust, fully equipped military that can engage with enemies across the globe. A failure to address the declining number of eligible volunteers will leave the Army and the country unprepared for battles to come.
John Spencer is a major in the U.S. Army and scholar with the Modern War Institute at the United States Military Academy at West Point. An infantryman for the past 23 years, he has held the ranks of private to sergeant first class, and lieutenant to major while serving in ranger, airborne, light, and mechanized infantry units. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or U.S. government.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/agenda/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-americans-are-joining-000005#ixzz3uSLSqI5q
When I was a commander in Iraq, many of my men were unfit for the battlefield. My unit needed them anyway.
By John Spencer, 12/15/15
When President Barack Obama announced that women would be eligible for combat roles in the military earlier this month, he stated “our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens.” Secretary of Defense Ash Carter echoed those thoughts: “Our force of the future must continue to benefit from the best people America has to offer … in the 21st century, that includes drawing strength from the broadest possible pool of people.”
This change is going to help the military in any number of ways: It’s a step toward greater fairness, and it makes a new talent pool available to combat positions. But before we get too complacent, the Army has another challenge in front of it that opening the door to women is just one small step toward solving: It is understaffed for the challenges it faces, and faces an even bigger recruiting struggle ahead.
The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking, leaving the Army at its smallest size in over 75 years and forcing units to rely on unstable and unprepared servicemen. That puts both our military troops and the country at risk.
In 2008, when I was an infantry company commander in charge of over 140 soldiers in Baghdad, I saw firsthand how the declining number of volunteers is hurting the military. Thirty-six of my men were forced to deploy even though their terms of service were up, a controversial military policy known as “stop loss” or the “back door draft.” To meet the bare minimum number of soldiers, my unit took men who were medically unfit to fight. I had soldiers that could not leave our compound because they were medically prohibited from wearing their body armor or classified as mentally unfit. I had soldiers taking anti-depression, sleeping, anxiety and other drugs. I had a mentally unstable private viciously attack his sergeant, causing lifelong damage, and multiple other problem soldiers that detracted from the combat performance of my unit. This was symptomatic throughout the Army.
The government’s current difficulty in assembling a full force dates to 1973, when the United States eliminated the draft and transitioned into an all-volunteer system. The major assumption undergirding that move was a belief that Americans would volunteer for military service when national security is at risk. But the past 14 years of war have proven that that assumption is wrong.
When the Army attempted to expand quickly to meet the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan, it struggled to recruit and retain enough soldiers fit for combat. The Army was forced to implement multiple policy changes to bring people into the army and to involuntarily keep those already serving. These changes included providing waivers to enlist high school dropouts, felons and others normally not qualified; increasing soldiers’ deployments from 12 to 15 months; and “stop loss.”
All of this is happening when the world is more unstable than at any point in recent memory. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) controls huge swaths of land and continues to commit mass atrocities, Iran is testing its ballistic missiles, China is building islands in the South China Sea, and Russia is facing off with Turkey. Faced with these threats, the Army must be ready to engage in multiple regions of the world at once. But by 2017, the Army will be the smallest it has been since 1940, with only 450,000 soldiers.
This problem is going to only get worse: The Department of Defense estimates that 71 percent of the roughly 34 million 17- to 24-year-olds in the U.S. today would fail to qualify based on the current enlistment criteria because of physical or mental health issues, low educational scores or major criminal convictions.
Of those who are qualified, many don’t want to join. A recent Washington Post survey found that 60 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds expressed support for using ground troops against ISIL. But 85 percent said they would “probably” or “definitely” not join the military. This is an alarming trend for an Army that relies on volunteers.
A small army incapable of expanding hurts our own capabilities and makes enemies less fearful of the U.S. military. If we want an Army that can expand quickly, we must recruit, train and develop a professional core of midgrade and senior officers and noncommissioned officers to which a group of junior enlisted volunteers can join. As the number of core officers shrinks, the risk that there won’t be enough volunteers in the future only increases.
While Congress is unlikely to consider reimplementing a draft, the Army can still make sure it has the forces required for modern military engagements. To overcome the demographic challenges, the government must make a greater effort to recruit younger Americans by reaching out to high school students and those younger through programs like the Boy Scouts and the first lady’s “Let’s Move” program. Furthermore, the government should devote resources to persuading interested Americans to actually join the military. Right now, we spend a lot of time finding eligible volunteers and less time actually developing them.
Opening all combat jobs to women will also help ensure the Army has a full force of soldiers. But it won’t do that much: Just 10 percent of the military had previously been closed to women. A better solution is to mandate a minimum size for the Army — over 500,000 people — that can be expanded when needed. We also need to address the assumption behind the size of the Army. Dreams of fighting future wars through technological smart weapons like precision-guided missiles or drones or through limited engagements executed by Special Forces are unrealistic.
We still need a robust, fully equipped military that can engage with enemies across the globe. A failure to address the declining number of eligible volunteers will leave the Army and the country unprepared for battles to come.
John Spencer is a major in the U.S. Army and scholar with the Modern War Institute at the United States Military Academy at West Point. An infantryman for the past 23 years, he has held the ranks of private to sergeant first class, and lieutenant to major while serving in ranger, airborne, light, and mechanized infantry units. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense or U.S. government.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/agenda/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-americans-are-joining-000005#ixzz3uSLSqI5q
No comments:
Post a Comment