Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Exhausted, Overextended Troops Ready to 'Unravel'

By Bobby Muller, AlterNet. Posted April 8, 2008.


General Petraeus calls for a pause against troop withdrawal, disregarding the fact that our military is nearly broken.
Advertisement

A central theme of General David Petraeus' tour of Capitol Hill are his pleas for patience with the U.S. war in Iraq. He called for a "pause" against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, citing the need to consolidate the gains that have been achieved over the past few months.

The crushing burden our military already endures ought to give serious pause to Members of Congress. The health of our military must be a top priority because current deployment rates are grinding up our military men and women, tearing at the bonds of families, eroding military readiness -- and leaving us less secure at home.

It is commonly known that a very small percentage of the American population has borne a disproportionate burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is less commonly understood is that our Army's Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) -- a subset of this already small population -- have been repeatedly sent to the frontlines, enduring high-intensity combat for extended periods with inadequate time at home between tours. This has always been a problem during America's wars, but at least in previous conflicts the draft provided a pool of manpower resources that could be dipped into to provide rest for those who bore the greatest burden. That is no longer true.

Some Army BCTs have deployed four times since Sept. 11, 2001. Members of the 10th Mountain Division, one of the most heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan, had a mere six months of dwell time between their second and third deployments since Sept. 11. Dozens of soldiers based at Fort Carson, Colorado, were recently sent back to Iraq despite having medical conditions that should have made them ineligible for continued deployments.

Untreated mental health problems suffered during combat are causing large numbers of repeatedly deployed troops "to unravel," in the words of an exhausted Army officer. Where once this country guaranteed its soldiers two days at home for every day deployed, that dwell-time ratio is now down to less than a day at home for every day deployed.

Pentagon reports make clear the problems unleashed on our troops by post-9/11 deployment cycles -- one recently termed the crisis "daunting and growing." Pentagon data show that after two deployments, the rate of mental health problems in the ranks grows by nearly half. Those who seek treatment often have to wait more than a month to see a medical professional.

The crush of deployments reaches beyond the full-time military, tearing at our National Guard as well. The Guard was designed for primarily domestic missions and is populated -- even more heavily than the active-duty Army -- by husbands and wives who support families. About one-half of National Guard members who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from mental health problems and are almost one-third more likely to develop post-combat mental health issues than their active-duty peers.

The same holds true for soldiers who serve in in highly sophisticated specialty units. The military is struggling to keep and recruit enough medical professionals, but it cannot match the pace of our current operations. In 2007, there were fewer military mental health officials in Iraq than there had been at any time since the first year of the war.

As a veteran, I have very real memories of the Vietnam War and am all too familiar with the human fallout produced when our country does not account for the toll of combat on its troops. The problem this time around is compounded by the heroic families who support, and depend on, our men and women in uniform. During the Vietnam War, the average age of those in combat was 19 while today it tops 27 years of age for active-duty troops and 33 years for members of the Guard. Nearly half of those killed in action today leave behind a spouse and/or children.

We owe our brave men and women far better than this hazardous deployment cycle; we also owe their families more. We cannot ask the same people to continue making sacrifices -- again, and again and again. It is impossible to know whether the current U.S. strategy for winning the war in Iraq will work, but the harm being done to our troops and their families by ongoing deployments, without sufficient time at home, is already clear.

When our elected representatives talk about the "readiness" of the military, they must also talk about the health of our troops. We cannot consider our military "ready" while we have troops on their third, fourth and fifth tours. Time is of the essence. Sacrifice and deployments continue while policy is debated. Half of New Jersey's National Guard is scheduled to mobilize for deployment this fall.

Our troops risk everything for us -- it's time for all Americans to consider the risks on them as this war continues without a foreseeable end.

The problem that I point out is not theoretical -- the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral David Mullen, is clearly worried that multiple deployments without requisite rest is playing havoc with our military. A four star naval officer, Mullen says that "the Army" is his number one concern. Why? "I remember the problems we had in the post-Vietnam era," he says. "And believe me, I am dedicated the ensuring that we don't have these problems again." The Army is not yet broken, Mullen says, but it is "badly strained."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: petraeus, pause, troop withdrawal, iraq

Bobby Muller is President of Veterans for America (formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation), and a co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
you don't go to war with the military you wish you had
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Apr 8, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you go to war with the military you've got.

it was a war of choice. it obviously didn't matter to those planning. they weren't going on the trip they mapped out.

the 9-11 patriots are just targets in a fixed carnival game. there is no winning. there never was a chance of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Want honest testimony about conditions in Iraq?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 8, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony/video

For example:

"And I’d like to sum it up like this: the prevailing sentiment in Iraq is this—another time that I was out on patrol in the Kindi Street area—as I said, part of our mission was to meet and greet the local population and find out what their problems were—and so, I approached a man with my interpreter on the side of the road, and I asked him, I said, “Look, are your lives better because we’re here? Are you safer? Do you feel more secure? Do you feel like we are liberating you?” And that man looked at me straight in the eye, and he said:

“Mister, we Iraqis know that you have good intentions here. But the fact of the matter is, before America invaded, we didn’t have to worry about car bombs in our neighborhoods, we didn’t have to worry about the safety of our own children as they walked to school, and we didn’t have to worry about US soldiers shooting at us as we drive up and down our own streets.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the suffering in Iraq is tearing that country apart. And ending that suffering begins with a complete and immediate withdrawal of all of our troops. Thank you very much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The U.S. military is broken, our troops are broken, and the "surge" is further breaking both
Posted by: Rune on Apr 8, 2008 12:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say what you will about the "war" or occupation of Iraq, the undeniable and officially reported fact is that the readiness of the U.S. military to defend against an actual threat to the United States has been terribly undermined and is being made worse by ongoing, large scale combat operations in Iraq. Meanwhile, large numbers of troops, especially those in National Guard units, are trapped in a revolving door of stop loss policies until they are spit out when they become too damaged to fight (or they are killed), only to become a burden for families and state and local governments to care for because the V.A. is broken, too.

These are real problems that are unacceptable to most people and politicians of any political stripe when they are forced to confront them. And that is what we should do, confront our people and government officials with this aspect of the mess and insist that they address them responsibly. They can do that by ending or seriously downscaling combat operations or by ramping up the budget and the recruiting efforts to replace the bodies and material that are being damaged and destroyed at a terrible rate. There isn't much will for a draft or for spending the extra tens of billions of dollars per year (if not more) it would take to rebuild military readiness while continuing to conduct "the surge" in Iraq, so winding down and getting out looks to be more the more acceptable option.

So long as the costs to military readiness and the well being of veterans are presented as the key issues, winding down combat operations in Iraq can have appeal to those who want a strong and able military as well as those who want to reduce the size of the military and put more effort and wherewithal into promoting peace.

Meanwhile, all (other than the guilty members of the administration) can agree that the terrible neglect of those who are being psychologically and physically damaged while serving in multiple, long combat stints in Iraq is a national disgrace, as well as a costly burden to address. That, too, should be a key point to emphasize.

Let's put aside the debate over whether the surge is "working" for now and concentrate on what it is costing us in terms of military readiness, medical and mental health obligations that are going unmet, and enormous amounts of deficit spending that are helping to sink the economy. Once that becomes THE frame, we can argue about what to do next, but so long as vague fears and undefined "victory" is the focus--as Petraeus and the Bush administration wish it to be--no practical and concrete consensus can be formed on how to escape this "war without end."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I know is...
Posted by: Quannah on Apr 8, 2008 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
after listening to the "theater" in that Senate hearing chamber, somebody has to find a way to put a stop to this madness. Once and for all. It's total and complete madness. No other word applies.

I've been sick all day. Physically ill. I can't listen anymore to the lies. I can't stomach any more of this. If this isn't treasonous behavior, then I don't know what is.

Stop the madness now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Apr 8, 2008 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The next step...


Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cut-and-Run Bush and his fellow rightwing cowards are destroying our military
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 8, 2008 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows that during the Vietnam War, George W. quit the Air National Guard 30 months before his sworn duty tour ended, grounded himself by refusing to take a mandatory flight physical and went AWOL. His neocon buddies are also spineless wimps.

Of the 25 founders of Bill Kristol's rightwing extremist organization, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which promoted the invasion of Iraq before 9-11, only three individuals served in the U.S. military and none of those saw combat.

Simply put, neocons don't fight wars, they just start 'em -- the major reason why our armed forces are coming unglued!

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the author of George Dub-ya Bush, THE PHONY FIGHTER PILOT, published in 2004.

Attention NEW Alternet visitors interested in the TRUTH about Bush 43. To read a sample chapter of PFP and learn about the only smoking-gun proof of White House corruption ever found on the Internet, visit www.PhonyFighterPilot.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps our leaders should just be honest and encourage their active-duty troops to divorce...
Posted by: mjabele on Apr 8, 2008 5:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...thereby enabling the spouses back home to remarry and get a step-parent in the home who's actually there for the kids rather than continuously deployed.

True, I'm speaking somewhat sarcastically, but from the personal perspective of having had my own tour of duty in Bosnia many years ago involuntarily extended from 6 months to 12 months; I wasn't married then, but was angry enough as it was, and can scarcely imagine how upset the current troops, many of whom have been deployed 3 or even 4 times for 12-15-month tours, must feel about being separated from their loved ones for such extended periods of time - in the case of those with young kids, for periods of time that essentially correspond to their offspring's entire childhoods.

What makes this so galling to me, and perhaps to them, is that the reason for the repeated deployment of such a small group of soldiers again and again and again has nothing to do with actual lack of manpower, but stems rather from the cowardice of our political leaders, who tell the public that the war in Iraq is "essential" to our national security - nay, "survival" even - but then don't have the balls to impose a military draft that would actually spread the cost of this "necessary" war evenly to all segments of the population. There's no political price to pay, in other words, when deploying, and re-deploying, and re-deploying again those who aren't in a position to say no, versus calling up those who'd never joined up voluntarily in the first place.

Seems to me that if you can't persuade the bulk of your populace to support a war from the get-go, then it's better to refrain from embarking on it in the first place rather than metaphorically grinding into the dust a small group of individuals who aren't in a position to refuse the call of duty, no matter how unreasonably often they're called upon. To put it another way, as a leader you should either be able to convince EVERYone to pitch in as part of what might be viewed as a truly "national" sacrifice, or, in the event you can't seem to manage that feat, concede political defeat and end the war you've started.

I wonder whether our leaders would behave with the same callous disregard and inhumanity if their own children were among those deployed. My guess is no, but given that military service seems to be a rare choice for the offspring of the political and corporate elite nowadays, I question whether we'll ever get a chance to find out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder what the result would be...
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 11, 2008 11:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if the entire military all loaded up in their aircraft and headed home, or maybe to someplace easier to reach if they didn't have the fuel? Just picked up their balls and bats, said, "Okay - that's it. Game over" and headed home? That may be the only solution in the final analysis. Our own Congress and the industries that own them are just raking in too much money for it to happen otherwise.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]