Longer tours of duty = less stress on the troops?

If this wasn’t published directly on the Pentagon’s website, I’d swear it was some kind of parody, meant to make the Bush administration look foolish.

Extended overseas deployments affecting soldiers serving in Afghanistan and other locales overseen by U.S. Central Command should help to alleviate the stress on the Army, a senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan told Pentagon reporters today.

“I’m absolutely confident that that’s going to work and that’ll manage the pressure and the stress on the force,” Army Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th Brigade Combat Team, said during a satellite-carried news conference. […]

The tour extensions will provide more predictability and stability for soldiers and their families, [Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno] said, noting the policy “will ensure 12 months at home station between rotations.” (emphasis added)

Let me get this straight. Two weeks ago, the Pentagon announced it is extending tours of duty for U.S. troops in Iraq, from 12 to 15 months (the announcement came less than 24 hours after Bush said extending tours of duty for U.S. troops in Iraq is “unacceptable”). Most credible experts believe the military is stretched so badly, it’s near the breaking point. The troops and their families are feeling anxiety that’s hard for civilians to even imagine.

But as far as the Pentagon’s news service is concerned, longer tours of duty will “alleviate the stress on the Army”? Is this some kind of sick attempt at humor?

As Noah Shachtman put it, “This is entering into ‘Baghdad Bob’ territory, folks. Seriously.”

Shachtman added that there two possible interpretations of the stress-reduction argument. Neither work.

The first is that longer tours will somehow ease pressures on the service, institutionally. Traditionally, the Army has tried to give its troops two years at home for every year in combat. Which means deployed units should only make up about a third of the force; the other two-thirds should be at rest or in training. But with the Iraq war dragging on so long, that hasn’t been possible. “Today half the Army’s 43 combat brigades are deployed overseas, with the remainder recovering from their latest deployment or preparing for the next one,” Time recently reported. Now, you’re telling me that more time in Iraq somehow help correct that imbalance? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

“Army stress” could also be interpreted as the burdens that soldiers and their families face, as they head off to war, again and again. That’s the kind of stress Gen. Odierno seems to imply will be helped by soldiers spending an extra three months in a warzone. Again, that’s a downright laughable position to take.

“Baghdad Bob,” indeed.

Bush: “Plan B [in Iraq] is to make plan A work”

“Q: Can you imagine a circumstance in which you would have to say, we did our best, good men and good women sacrificed their life, but we can’t in the end do what we want to do, and we have to leave?

“Bush: No. I can’t imagine that…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/25/BL2007042501330_4.html

  • I can think of another abrupt end of a “tour of duty” that would alleviate stress on the troops and the entire country. As of right now that tour of doody is scheduled to run until January 2009.

  • A good friend of mine currently serving in Afghanistan reads this site regularly, but cannot comment for obvious reasons. His comment to me about this article ranges from hysterical laughter to “unprintable.”

  • Let me get this straight. Two weeks ago, the Pentagon announced it is extending tours of duty for U.S. troops in Iraq,

    Traitors!

  • By that logic, if we left the troops there permanently they wouldn’t have any stress at all.

    Oops, wait, could that be what they’ve been angling for the whole time? Nah, couldn’t be.

    /snark

  • “The tour extensions will provide more predictability and stability for soldiers and their families…”

    Yea, absolutely no chance that they will change the rules again later on.

  • Yea, absolutely no chance that they will change the rules again later on.

    That was my thought too — I’ll believe the “one year at home guaranteed” bit when I see it.

  • Well, in fairness I think by the word “stress” the Pentagon means to refer to the stress level on our armed forces as a whole, not individual tension caused by the additional time of deployment. It’s analogous to using the word “stress” to describe the tension put on a metal bar before it breaks as opposed to using the word “stress” to describe how an individual feels after the bar breaks and hits their child on the head and they are unable to make it to the hospital because of a traffic jam.

    In other words, the argument from the Pentagon is that extending deployments allows more time for stateside brigade to re-equip, train, and take care of business in the homeland, and there’s a better chance of returning to the 4 brigade readiness pattern (1 deployed, one returning, one training, and one ready for deployment/replacement).

    Now, in saying that, I think they’re full of shit priceless for the reasons Steve alludes to. The extended deployment serves only to erode the will and motivation for the good men already in harm’s way and makes it very hard for them to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

    We’re in danger of turning our armed forces into cynics and nihilists, neither of which is a good thing.

  • Knowing you are good and fucked on a permanent basis will alleviate the stress of having your hopes squashed over and over.

    Next week the Pentagon will tell us that regularl casualties within a unit improves morale.

    [/snarcasm]

    Why the flaming hell do they have to keep picking at it? They’re dealing with professionals, adults, soldiers. The soldiers know this is a bad situation and whether or not they like it, they’re professionals and they don’t have a choice. They don’t need the P-Gon telling them this is actually a good thing because they know it is one more lie on top of all of the other lies.

    Wait, I’m forgetting, this isn’t for the soldiers. This PR pablum is for the pResident to quote during his next speech. “Ya see, the Pentagon says keepin’ the soldiers in Iraq an’ Afghanistan is good for the soldiers and their families and the army. The Democrats want to hurt the troops, the army and families by bringin’ the troops home!”

    And that mad motherfucker will believe every word.

  • I remember Baghdad Bob making a lot of sense, actually. As US troops advanced on Baghdad, he said Saddam was winning. The Americans thought he was crazy and he was laughed at by our media.

    Saddam was winning. What we have today, Saddam predicted exactly. I understood this at the time, but who am I? I didn’t even have a blog back then.

    We’re are a very young nation which seldom, if ever takes the long view of anything. Today’s situation was easy to predict for anyone who took five minutes to think it through.

    Learn, America. Learn.

  • Just think of all the business the post Class 6 and local liquor stores will get once the soldiers eventually get home.

    Seriously, how can you maintain discipline and cohesion when you extend soldiers’ tours, then tell them that they shouldn’t stress out about it?
    The insurgents couldn’t have done a better job of destroying the Army.

  • Jefff, you are exactly correct. The idea behind “stabilizing” tours at X months is so troops & their families can rely on when they’re next going downrange. Unfortunately, tours started out stabilized at, IIRC, 9 months. Then they stabilized at 12. Now they’re at 15.

    If I were in the Army (thankfully, I chose the Air Force), I’d be interested in me & my unit buddies having a little heart-to-heart with Col Schweitzer and anyone else involved in developing this Orwellian system. Along with a case of bar soap & a few pairs of socks…

  • “By that logic, if we left the troops there permanently they wouldn’t have any stress at all.”

    Keeping the Legions on the Frontiers was the Roman’s solution. They had a voluntary army. Why wouldn’t it work for us? 😉

  • I am reminded of Col. Kurtz’s insisting that what he needed was a small force, who would stay until the war was won.
    Maybe Kurtz was right…except for the minor detail that he only existed at the intersection of the fevered brains of Francis Ford Coppola, Joseph Conrad, John Milius, and Marlon Brando.

  • “I’m absolutely confident that that’s going to work and that’ll manage the pressure and the stress on the force,” Army Col. Martin Schweitzer, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s 4th Brigade Combat Team, said during a satellite-carried news conference. […]

    Isn’t the 82nd Airborne the division which took that terrible hit the other day? That’s 9 soldiers right there, who are no longer “stressed” about their extended tours; they’re “stabilized” forever now.

    As a commander, Schweitzer is a putz. I can understand why he woudn’t speak out against the policy — he can’t, without being court-martialled. But nothing forces him to shill *for* it, for pete’s sake!

  • ***“Q: Can you imagine a circumstance in which you would have to say, we did our best, good men and good women sacrificed their life, but we can’t in the end do what we want to do, and we have to leave?

    “Bush: No. I can’t imagine that…”***

    Only those who have faced the fire of the battlefield can imagine such a circumstance. Those who have previously fled the fire, ironically, are the most adept of denying the imagination of reality; circumsizing both military logic and diplomatic truth so that it fits well within their baseless mythos of glory undeserved, and unearned….

  • I can see where the twisted logic of the miitary brass comes into play. If you knew you would have to stay in-theater now for an extra three months and your chance of eating it went up 25%, I’d say the soldiers are at a point of resignation. The predictability and stability are more likely the manifestations of loss of hope.

    If any of the troops out there are reading this, this is the last thing any of us want to happen to all of you. Why you have to take the hit for others’ poor planning and poor decisions is beyond me. We’re safer with you here at home than with you over there.

  • I had been missing Baghdad Bob for a while and am glad that the Bush administration and the DOD is able to fill this position. The Pentagon rarely made or makes sense.

  • “Keeping the Legions on the Frontiers was the Roman’s solution. They had a voluntary army. Why wouldn’t it work for us?”- Lance

    the US has been offering green cards for other nationals to enlist in the Army for some years. Several thousand have joined up. Its big in tthe South Pacific- Fiji etc
    reminded me of the Romans, but guess you’ve got profiling for nth african and middle east recruits

  • Comments are closed.