"Breaking the Military": Webb Elaborates

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/13/2007 6:19:30 AM

In yesterday's conference call, which unfortunately I couldn't make because of another pre-existing meeting, Jim Webb elaborated on his statement Wednesday that the Bush Administration is "breaking our army."  According to Senator Webb, as reported in the Daily Progress, the decision to extend Army combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq from 12 to 15 months is placing "enormous" strains on the military and is  "harmful to the well-being of a lot of people in our military."

As if that's not bad enough:

"You are beginning to see in the West Point classes that have finished their five-year commitments a tremendous run for the exits," said Webb, whose son is serving in Iraq.

"The West Point class of 2000 has already lost the majority of its class members" to civilian life once they had a choice of renewing their enlistments, he said. Almost half of the class of 2001 has left, he added.

To all those people who come here and ask endlessly what "broken" means, I think you have a damn good definition right there, from someone who knows the military better than anyone.  Case closed.


Comments



What pct was class of 1996? (relawson - 4/13/2007 7:36:00 AM)
I would like to see a comparison of the class of 2000 against classes that graduated during peacetime and classes that graduated right after 9/11.  My guess is that the 9/11 timeframe graduates went active duty because in vast majorities because they believed in what they were doing.  I think you see people voting with their feet here now, considering that so many don't believe in what we are doing.


Some more stats (Quizzical - 4/14/2007 4:20:42 PM)
about this are in this Boston Globe article
http://www.boston.co...

It says the norm is that over the last three decades, at the 5 year mark after graduation, 10-30% of a West Point class leaves active duty. 



Great job (Alicia - 4/13/2007 2:01:47 PM)
I appreciate, and agree with, the elaboration.


Cost estimate on the repair (Quizzical - 4/14/2007 8:14:14 AM)

"HOW TO FIX IT

The Army and the Pentagon bought into the notions that the war was going to be quick and easy and that victory would come right after the next Iraqi elections or the ones after that. As such optimistic scenarios proved false, the problem of shortfalls in troops and matériel got worse each year. A Republican-controlled Congress, wary of challenging a G.O.P. President on the war's course, added some funds but not nearly enough. Next year the Army is seeking a 19% budget hike, including a 55% rise in procurement dollars, to $130 billion.

The only way to fix the Army's woes is to effect a change in money or mind-set or probably some of each. The Army has been starved for cash since the cold war's end. (Its leaders gripe that from 1990 to 2005, their service pocketed just 16% of the Pentagon's hardware budget, while the Air Force got 36% and the Navy 33%.) Diverting funds from some of those two services' high-tech-and costly-cold war weapons could help restore the Army's health."

from the Time Magazine story

In other words, they are saying that next year's 650 billion dollar defense budget is not enough.