Posted on 11/22/2006 7:18:21 PM PST by bnelson44
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new Marine Corps commandant said Wednesday that the longer than anticipated pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is putting an unacceptable strain on his troops.
Gen. James Conway said the service is unable to meet its goal of giving Marines twice as much time at home as in a war zone.
He said unless the demand on the corps eases, he may have to propose increasing the size of the force.
The Marine Corps is the smallest of the Pentagon's military services. The Coast Guard, which is even smaller, is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Currently there are 180,000 Marines on active duty and about 40,000 in the active reserves. Marine units serve seven-month deployments in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Conway, who led Marine units into Iraq in 2003 and served on the Pentagon's joint staff, said his troops should get 14 months of relief before they are sent back.
Typically, however, they get only seven or eight months home before being returned to combat, he said.
Assuming the Marines' top job little more than a week ago, Conway told reporters at a Pentagon roundtable discussion that he sees two ways to alleviate stress on troops.
"One is reducing the requirement [of a set deployment time]. The other is potentially growing the force for what we call the long war," Conway said.
Some units are serving their fourth tours in Iraq, and the strain on their families has raised concern that Marines will start leaving the service when their enlistments are up.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
How is that part of the problem?
I'm all for putting the symmetry back in warfare.
Nowhere did I mention limousine moderates your honor. Plus I think I know you well enough to know that you wouldn't mind "investing" more. I don't mind either as long as the money is "earmarked" for the troops.
Dear Mr. President,
Very shortsighted and myopic view. The country you live in is populated with 40 to 60 year olds and a work force at 4% unemployment. The young people that make the military a career choice are the ones left to fight this war. To draft from the general populace would tip the balance against the war and insure a withdrawal. we are in big trouble if this country needs large troop increases in the near future. Your feelings are admirable and in a more patriotic vibrant America it would make absolute sense.
Sincerely,
The House and Senate Leadership
Interesting idea, really.
Libs ae always talking about people "paying their fair share" yet they tend to let others do the heavy lifting when it comes to military service.
Maybe, just maybe this ought to be shoved in the face of the limo libs (both parties!) when they bring the subject up.
When I read that it made me glad my kids are in the Army and outside the wire in Iraq and not working for that officer in the corps.
The shorter the tour, the shorter then turn-around time.
That's how the Marines have decided to rotate units. It's still just another way of managing shortages. Maybe we should have just assigned all units to Iraq "for the duration" back in 03. Would that have been better?
Why do you say that?
By the way, that is where my son was this year up to 3 weeks ago. He will be back there at the end of next year.
It is a prescription for short-turn around time.
The Army is trying to do it with one year deployments and [I don't know how many] months back. It's not working either. I give you the 172nd Armored Brigade out of Alaska and the 1st Bde of the 1st AD.
No matter how you slice it, it's still like the reverse of trying to put 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.
I'll ask you again, what should the turn around time be, if any?
My question is: why don't we reduce the number of troops in Japan to ease the shortage? Do we really need 10s of thousands of troops in Japan or Germany?
Units in Germany and Korea are already in the mix. Don't know about Japan.
A bit less air cav and a bunch more Strykers. This war will be won by having the military move into the hotbeds to stay until it's over - not by mopping them up and then moving on so the thugs can move back in.
Gee, maybe because you get a much better grade of soldier with volunteers?
What troops are in Japan are headquarters types, a theater support command (supply depot), or airmen at Kadena, Misawa, and Yakota AFBs. Their skill sets aren't what we need for Iraq.
My point was that the shorter the tour, the shorter the turn-around time. Additionally, deployment and redeployment requirements further exacerbate the problem of effective time-on-the ground.
If the Commandant asserts that the turn-around time is insufficient by X months, than the tour length should be extended by the same amount of time.
Increasing the size of the force by creating new units is not a viable short-term option even if Congress would authorize an increase in end strength.
Strykers are fine DB. No objections. :-}
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.