Him and his sidekick Scott Ritter are two of a kind.
Posted on 05/27/2004 8:08:22 AM PDT by gcul
By David H. Hackworth
Top military managers insist that our all-volunteer Army isn’t stretched too thin from this country’s heavy and hazardous commitment to hot spots like Iraq and Afghanistan and cooler places in another 131 countries around Planet Earth. They spout positive numbers like carnival hucksters, hyping enlistment and re-enlistment rates they keep insisting are at an all-time high.
“Loyalty, patriotism and seeing the results of successfully accomplishing their missions are the key factors in this success,” said Col. Elton Manske, an Army personnel chief in the Pentagon.
Except that’s exactly 180 degrees out from what hundreds of soldiers have told me during the past few weeks.
It also doesn't square with the fact that the Army is currently extending 44,000 soldiers under stop-loss provisions – which, like a form of the draft, arbitrarily keep a soldier in service beyond the agreed-upon term of enlistment.
"Stop loss is not only a breach of contract, it’s a form of slavery,” railed a Special Forces (SF) senior noncommissioned officer. “There's a tidal wave of folks getting out. ... The number of senior SF NCOs leaving is amazing. Our battalion had three of five sergeant-majors retire, and our sister battalion had two of five. The number of master sergeants was well into double digits. I predict that the exodus will devastate the senior NCO corps at a time when experience and stability are most needed.”
Despite all the accentuate-the-positive spin coming out of the Pentagon, the anecdotal reports I’ve received – especially from Reserve and National Guard folks – agree with the SF sergeant and point to a mass exodus that will reach the hemorrhage point by mid-2005.
“Speaking off the record,” writes a military wife, “my husband was supposed to come home from Iraq this week but has just been extended another 120 days. His old unit, 3rd Infantry Division, is already seeing an exodus of junior officers. Since their return from Iraq, 35 captains have left the Army for greener pastures. Several more – read: another 15-20 – are due to leave, but who knows whether or not they’ll manage to do so before more stop losses and stop moves come down prior to their return to the desert. ... Between separation from family, no guarantee of tour lengths, no clear mission and consistent pay problems, folks are pretty fed up. If they can get out, which is no small feat, they seem to be doing so while the getting is good.”
“Don't use my name,” writes a senior sergeant. “I believe we are going to have a massive attrition problem in the Reserve. I have 24 years in the Army Reserve, and this is my second time in the Gulf. They’re talking about reservists having to deploy once every five years. I doubt our civilian employers and families are going to buy into that. I've got to get out when I redeploy if I want to stay married.”
“We're stretched too thin,” reports a sergeant. “Our CO (commanding officer) admitted this to us during our tour in Afghanistan. He also admitted that morale is down due to the extending of tours. Yet the Pentagon insists there’s no problem with morale. We lost over 75 percent of our unit when we got back. I know other units are having the same problems. If this trend continues, we won’t have enough people to defend this country when the need arises.”
An Apache pilot in Korea says, “It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Army is going to be losing a lot of people as soon as they get the chance to vote with their feet.”
I’m sure the brass have all the paperwork to back up their propaganda campaign. But as far as the old saw that “figures don't lie” goes, I’ve been around long enough to know that liars figure and soldiers know the truth. So I’ll go with the soldiers.
Unless so-called Army short tours in the badlands of Iraq and Afghanistan become manageable based on the number of troops available – right now the Army is trying to do the work of 14 divisions with 10 under-strength, active-duty divisions – we’ll see a mass exodus from the Green Machine and the inevitable return of the draft.
Eilhys England also contributed to this column.
Sounds like Pat Buchanan and Hack are using each others' material.
I agree. I think he is a good man, and his heart is in the right place, but he has made to many incorrect predictions for him to have any credibility.
I'm sorry, but deploying once every five years seems quite reasonable, at least with the current state of affairs. The primary responsibility of the armed forces (including the reserves) is to fight against enemies and protect the nation. I think the past few decades of effort promoting the service as a job training program has skewed some enlistees' perceptions of their obligation.
And I don't think advertising the Army or Marines as actual fighting forces would hinder recruitment. Some of the "Army of One" ads are doing an ok job of depicting things, but when they show some chick learning "electronics", I think "some poor, sorry girl from podunk is going to sign up and get her ass kicked". Anyone else have similar thoughts?
If you consolidate your forces into an iron first, that is the last you will see of your forces--a glowing hotspot.
Hack has a narrow view of the situation. If soldiers are disgruntled they contact him. If they are satisfied the do not.
Unfortunately, Hack assumes the folks griping represent 100% of the Army.
Wonder what Hackworth would have said in late '42 while we were bogged down in a hopless war of attrition on a worthless island in the middle of the Pacific called Guadalcanal?
For years Hackworth has been beating the drum for a return of the draft. Why you say? As he put it in a recent essay "The Draft as Deterrent", the draftees are "natural-born whistle-blowers" who keep the military and politicians in line.
True, but I do wonder if this guy is being kept from a lucrative offer from Blackwater or another private military firm.
You said
"US wives should do their part, too, you know. They shouldn't be exempt from any defense responsibilities. They could keep it in their pants while their men are living miserably and risking their lives for us all. "
Miltary spouses are not military members. They are exempted by law from any defense responsibilities, whatever you mean by that, thanks mainly to a backlash against the white-glove-tea-with-the-commander's-wife-to-promote-your-husband's-career culture of the 50s and 60s.
I agree with your ideas about no-fault divorce, but you're way off base if you want to make "US wives" subject to the UCMJ.
Thanx for the ping, TP.
Hackworth lost any credibity with the Guard years back.
The draft talk is just trip wire, meant to bring down suport for the war among The Sheep. And of course, GWB. The Left doesn't want it, knows they can't get it, but it's a great political football and mind screw.
"Except that’s exactly 180 degrees out from what hundreds of soldiers have told me during the past few weeks."
Exactly when, where and how did Hackworth communicate with hundresds of soldiers during the past few weeks? I doubt seriously he has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan to meet with them personally. Can you imagine the military issuing Hackworth press credentials and giving him access to troops in the field?
The only place I could imagine Hackworth having contact with soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines nowadays is in a checkout line at the PX or commissary, or at an off post bar where Hackworth was buying drinks. I'd be willing to bet Hackworth would not get too warm a reception if he visited an Officers' Club.
Also, the stop-loss provisions under which personnel are being retained are not breaches of contracts. The standard contract contains provisions for duration of any emergency plus additional time.
Him and his sidekick Scott Ritter are two of a kind.
You are correct and I don't think Hackworth is totally off base here however I do see many new recruits.
My Air National Guard unit has lost a fair amount of experienced NCO's and SNCO's after returning from Iraq and will shed many others by 2005.
War is war and when called you must go. The problem is that you don't have any clear timeline as to when you'll return and now the Guard and Reserve are being pressed into service for at least 4 months out of every year.
I joined for 3 reasons. I love my country, I love the Air Force and aviation and I couldn't afford to pay for college. I'm 27 and still trying to complete my degree because I've been forced to drop my classes due to activations. I would consider staying in if I could get a commission but am fairly sure I'll hang it up after 10 years of service.
I've already lost one job because of my military service, of which the Department of Labor is investigating, and I can't afford to lose another.
Rumsfield and the Secretaries of the various departments are talking about decreasing the size of the military. Considering our current commitment I just don't see how.
There is a problem, trust me.
Tom Paine had a word for them in the Revolutionary War--Sunshine Soldiers.
There are always going to be a certain number of soldiers who sign up for the Reserve and a peace-time army but don't want to continue when they are actually called upon to serve.
I don't belittle their service. But when faced by losing their well-paying employment at home, it's only logical that older Reserve members want to end their service when the time comes and they can get out. Imagine a professional man in his thirties unexpectedly sent to Iraq on an extended mission. Will he want to extend his service or return to his job and family?
Where does Hack cite any statistics to prove that either a.)the officer & senior NCO attrition rate is higher than before, or, b.)that the numbers of enlistments/commissions is going down?
Historically, officers in the military have viewed times of war to be opportunities for career advancement & professional growth. Maybe if people are leaving it is a "weeding out" process of the weak?
I'm having one hellava bonfire this winter, fueled with Hackworth and Clancy books. Bring your marshmallows and join me.
He is trying to prove that he was correct in his estimations, even though his estimations did not come true.
If you read his books, he says he wants an Army that is Military, not Corporate, he wants an Officer system that is lot limited to " Three or out", and a system where Officers put troops first.
Looks like his big deal is showing how smart he was, not the troops or the efficiency of the Army.
Regrettably, waiting unti comabt to cull the ranks means good troops might wind up dead.
Hackworth suffers from False Authority Syndrome; his reputation is such that, he can make something out of thin air, and others will unquestioningly cite it as fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
