Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Army Times
December 10, 2007
Pg. 12
Joint Chiefs chairman looks to increase dwell time for soldiers, but not at expense of mission
By William H. McMichael
Growing the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, and reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq are the keys to easing the current strain on ground forces — but the Army might not stop growing once it reaches its end-strength target of 547,000, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
“My position on this is that we need to get to 547,” Adm. Mike Mullen said in a Nov. 27 meeting with Army Times editors and reporters in Springfield, Va. “And in the time it’s going to take us to get to 547, we can figure out ... whether that’s the right number or whether we should grow beyond that.”
The Marine Corps, he said, feels “pretty strongly” that its eventual growth to 202,000 “is the right answer,” Mullen said.
The Army and Marine Corps are in the midst of an increase of 92,000 troops by 2012 — and the Army, now at 522,000, is aiming to hit its target two years earlier than that.
Officials say personnel growth in the ground forces will help increase the amount of time between deployments — “dwell time” — to give war-weary troops more time at home to recuperate and train for a broader mix of missions than only the counterinsurgency effort demanded by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Currently, Army troops serve 15-month war tours and come home for as little as 12 months before deploying again, while Marines deploy for seven months at a time and can go back seven months later. Mullen said officials want to get the Army to a 1-to-1 ratio as soon as possible, with an ultimate goal for all ground troops of one-year deployments with two years at home.
“We all feel we’ve got to move in that direction,” Mullen said. “That said, we’ve got operational obligations which we’re going to have to fill. And that’s the balance piece. That’s the constant tension that’s there.”
Getting it “right for the future,” Mullen said, is “a combination of winning today ... and also getting ready ... for tomorrow.”
The planned cut in combat forces in Iraq by next July will also help ease the strain, he said.
“Coming down to 15 brigades in Iraq will have an impact on that over the long run,” Mullen said.
In addition, he said, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway “are looking at ways to deploy more of their services. There’s been a certain percentage of each service which has deployed, and they’re looking for ways to increase those numbers” as a way to broaden the deployment pool and ease the operations tempo for everyone.
Mullen did not provide further details on that initiative.
He said there has been no discussion about relying more heavily on the National Guard or reserves, which are already major contributors to the wars, in order to reduce the pressure on the active force.
In September, President Bush, citing reports of a marked reduction in the terrorist and sectarian violence that has torn Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003, announced plans to bring 5,700 troops home by Christmas, and a total of 21,500 troops — all told, roughly equivalent to the number of additional “surge” troops sent to Iraq early this year — by July.
Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said that further force reductions “will continue” beyond that point, but he won’t make any specific recommendations until about mid-March.
Bush credited the lessened violence to his troop surge of five brigade combat teams, aimed at giving Iraqi leaders the breathing space to work on much-needed legislation and other reforms. But he said his plans for additional trims are contingent on continued improvements in Iraq.
“The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home,” Bush said.
Mullen, who visited Iraq during his first week as chairman in October, said that he, too, is buoyed by the reports.
“The surge has created a very, very positive change in the security environment over the last many months,” Mullen said. “And that has created a window of opportunity for the government of Iraq, for the economy of Iraq.”
But, he warned, that window will stay open for only a limited time.
“I think the Iraqi leaders need to seize the moment,” Mullen said. “And [realize] that this window of opportunity — I’ve had this discussion, actually, with the leadership there — is finite. They need to take advantage of it.”
Mullen warned that the security situation in Iraq could unexpectedly change. While the trends are positive, he said, “that doesn’t mean it’s not a dangerous country; that doesn’t mean al-Qaida’s gone; that doesn’t mean that Baghdad isn’t a violent city.”
“But every statistic that I’ve seen with respect to violence [is] just enormously better. So I’m cautiously optimistic, from that standpoint.”
Mullen admitted that the Army and Marine Corps commitment in Iraq gives the U.S. few ground force options should a contingency arise elsewhere in the world.
“We have assumed some strategic risk,” Mullen said. “And I think we’ve done that consciously. I, as the chairman, am responsible to ... make sure I apprise my bosses of what I think that risk is.”
One area of particular concern is Iran and its nuclear program. Iran denies it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but the Bush administration says otherwise.
And its iron-jawed stance — Vice President Cheney said in October that the U.S. “will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” and if it acquires one, the U.S. and other nations are “prepared to impose serious consequences” — has some fearing an inevitable unilateral military strike against Iran.
Mullen disagrees. “The future is very hard to predict,” he said.
He acknowledged that there are “worrisome” aspects of the situation with Iran now, and said the U.S. must retain the option to take military action if need be.
But Mullen said that while Iran is “a great concern, certainly,” military conflict “is avoidable.”
December 10, 2007
Pg. 12
Joint Chiefs chairman looks to increase dwell time for soldiers, but not at expense of mission
By William H. McMichael
Growing the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, and reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq are the keys to easing the current strain on ground forces — but the Army might not stop growing once it reaches its end-strength target of 547,000, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
“My position on this is that we need to get to 547,” Adm. Mike Mullen said in a Nov. 27 meeting with Army Times editors and reporters in Springfield, Va. “And in the time it’s going to take us to get to 547, we can figure out ... whether that’s the right number or whether we should grow beyond that.”
The Marine Corps, he said, feels “pretty strongly” that its eventual growth to 202,000 “is the right answer,” Mullen said.
The Army and Marine Corps are in the midst of an increase of 92,000 troops by 2012 — and the Army, now at 522,000, is aiming to hit its target two years earlier than that.
Officials say personnel growth in the ground forces will help increase the amount of time between deployments — “dwell time” — to give war-weary troops more time at home to recuperate and train for a broader mix of missions than only the counterinsurgency effort demanded by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Currently, Army troops serve 15-month war tours and come home for as little as 12 months before deploying again, while Marines deploy for seven months at a time and can go back seven months later. Mullen said officials want to get the Army to a 1-to-1 ratio as soon as possible, with an ultimate goal for all ground troops of one-year deployments with two years at home.
“We all feel we’ve got to move in that direction,” Mullen said. “That said, we’ve got operational obligations which we’re going to have to fill. And that’s the balance piece. That’s the constant tension that’s there.”
Getting it “right for the future,” Mullen said, is “a combination of winning today ... and also getting ready ... for tomorrow.”
The planned cut in combat forces in Iraq by next July will also help ease the strain, he said.
“Coming down to 15 brigades in Iraq will have an impact on that over the long run,” Mullen said.
In addition, he said, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway “are looking at ways to deploy more of their services. There’s been a certain percentage of each service which has deployed, and they’re looking for ways to increase those numbers” as a way to broaden the deployment pool and ease the operations tempo for everyone.
Mullen did not provide further details on that initiative.
He said there has been no discussion about relying more heavily on the National Guard or reserves, which are already major contributors to the wars, in order to reduce the pressure on the active force.
In September, President Bush, citing reports of a marked reduction in the terrorist and sectarian violence that has torn Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003, announced plans to bring 5,700 troops home by Christmas, and a total of 21,500 troops — all told, roughly equivalent to the number of additional “surge” troops sent to Iraq early this year — by July.
Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said that further force reductions “will continue” beyond that point, but he won’t make any specific recommendations until about mid-March.
Bush credited the lessened violence to his troop surge of five brigade combat teams, aimed at giving Iraqi leaders the breathing space to work on much-needed legislation and other reforms. But he said his plans for additional trims are contingent on continued improvements in Iraq.
“The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home,” Bush said.
Mullen, who visited Iraq during his first week as chairman in October, said that he, too, is buoyed by the reports.
“The surge has created a very, very positive change in the security environment over the last many months,” Mullen said. “And that has created a window of opportunity for the government of Iraq, for the economy of Iraq.”
But, he warned, that window will stay open for only a limited time.
“I think the Iraqi leaders need to seize the moment,” Mullen said. “And [realize] that this window of opportunity — I’ve had this discussion, actually, with the leadership there — is finite. They need to take advantage of it.”
Mullen warned that the security situation in Iraq could unexpectedly change. While the trends are positive, he said, “that doesn’t mean it’s not a dangerous country; that doesn’t mean al-Qaida’s gone; that doesn’t mean that Baghdad isn’t a violent city.”
“But every statistic that I’ve seen with respect to violence [is] just enormously better. So I’m cautiously optimistic, from that standpoint.”
Mullen admitted that the Army and Marine Corps commitment in Iraq gives the U.S. few ground force options should a contingency arise elsewhere in the world.
“We have assumed some strategic risk,” Mullen said. “And I think we’ve done that consciously. I, as the chairman, am responsible to ... make sure I apprise my bosses of what I think that risk is.”
One area of particular concern is Iran and its nuclear program. Iran denies it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but the Bush administration says otherwise.
And its iron-jawed stance — Vice President Cheney said in October that the U.S. “will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” and if it acquires one, the U.S. and other nations are “prepared to impose serious consequences” — has some fearing an inevitable unilateral military strike against Iran.
Mullen disagrees. “The future is very hard to predict,” he said.
He acknowledged that there are “worrisome” aspects of the situation with Iran now, and said the U.S. must retain the option to take military action if need be.
But Mullen said that while Iran is “a great concern, certainly,” military conflict “is avoidable.”