Reserve Chief on Retaining Reserve Soldiers

Recently LTG Stultz the chief of the Army Reserve has championed the idea that retaining soldiers in the Army Reserve is a idea that has increased importance to our defense posture. With the change to an operational Reserve, the reduced transition times for citizen soldiers and the increased skill set required from Reserve units – retention of soldiers who have experienced the lessons of combat becomes even more critical. This issue of retention becomes extremely important to a military's force structure and effectiveness and has traditionally been of minor importance when peacetime demands provided no incentive to keep soldiers in uniform for extended periods. LTG Stultz has provided some new ideas as well as previously attempted but failed offerings for retaining Reserve soldiers.

As he is quoted here from a recent article by American Force Press Service Army Reserve Chief Applies Business Lessons to Military Force By Donna Miles; he offers some new and old concepts – some notes on each…

He likes the concept of a “continuum of service” that would enable soldiers to move between the active and reserve component during their military careers. This would enable soldiers to continuing serving as their life situation changes.

This concept is a good one – the vehicle for going from Reserves to Active Component has been virtually impossible or non-existent in the past – what better way to retain, gain one force mentality than to have continued rotation of personnel between active and reserve environments. The flexibilities offered could help retain active and Reserve soldiers for a longer duration.

He is troubled over the issue of reserve medical benefits – that maze of changes in medical insurance Reservists must undergo with each deployment and re-deployment – with regard to the medical changes endured he had this thought and what is a great idea;

If we are truly going to have an operational force in the reserve components, if we are truly going to say to expect to be mobilized on a repeated basis on a regular frequency, we can’t keep requiring the soldier to change medical plans every five years,” he said. “We just can’t keep doing that.” Stultz noted that changing medical plans affects entire families. “That is too much turmoil and stress on the family,” he said.

He’s considered ways to prevent this, possibly by having the military work with employers to share the cost of continuing corporate health-care benefits while a soldier is mobilized. Another option might be for the military to extend Tricare benefits for reservists to reservists who don’t have health insurance elsewhere or at a lower cost than they can get it from their employers.

That could be a big enticement for civilian employers, particularly those in small business, to want to hire reservists, he said.

This effort would be a new avenue and could be taken up quickly for Federal employees that are Reserve soldiers – should be easy to adapt a shared medical burden for soldiers that are also Feds.

Finally the rehashed idea – seen by inside observers of the Reserve component and struck down by the Pentagon every year. There has been several attempts to get a reduced retirement age provision tied to either greater longevity or combat zone experience. These are often championed by congress and dismissed by the Pentagon…

He’s intrigued by the concept of allowing reservists to draw retirement six months early for every year they serve beyond 20. Based on this formula, troops who served 22 years could draw it at age 59. Those with 26 years of service could draw it at 57. Those who stay 30 years – which Stultz recommends as the cap – could draw their retirement at age 55.

“So I would get 10 more years of service out of that individual, for five years of early retirement,” he said.

LTG Stultz is thinking and working some good points – reflecting a point of view shared by many within the rank and File of the Reserves – he is a reserve soldier with a civilian job and knows the trials of such an arrangement. His comments reflect a refreshing air of concern for soldier readiness and retention not seen for many years . Unfortunately he will struggle first with the Active component machine to make these necessary improvements – I would like to see him prevail and I wish him luck.

Guard and Reserve Family Support

New Flash - update

I wrote this article based largely on the experience of my familiy support group - it seems there are resources out there - though not well or universally publicized that do exactly what I was asking for with my article - I am happy to note that I recieved a response from a former Family Support Coordinator that provided the DoD one source location - it can be found at Military one source I stand unofficially educated and corrected - thanks to Chuck for setting me straight.

News Flash - update

All told, more than 417,000 National Guard and Reservists, or about 80 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve, have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, with an average of 18 months per mobilization. Of these, more than 84,200, or 20 percent, have been deployed more than once. Army National Guard and Reserve families are subjected to the greatest stress concerning the length of deployment due to remote location relative to military installations. The Army has moved to a 12 month deployment model which will partially address the duration of stress but there remains a glaring inadequacy in addressing support for families. The Guard and Reserve remain inadequately staffed to provide assistance on a consistent basis for deployed unit member families.

What is needed is round the clock access to resources – readily available –for the Reserve and Guard family member to one stop shop for support while their loved ones are deployed? Presently the Family Support program falls far short of this requirement. At most units, Family support is provided by volunteers (often the Cdr’s spouse) to members. The effort carried out by these volunteers is heroic but there is a morale responsibility on the Military to provide something more substantive than an adhoc volunteer group to aid family members that are located great distances from military installations and services.

One method we may harness is providing Family support services via the Internet. Most people have some form of access to the internet and deployed soldiers families could use this mode as a portal to aid and assistance when needed. Using a secure AKO platform and a live response element could enable the military to provide a place to turn when a Tricare issue, power of attorney problem, household question or other issue turns up. Imagine what a single site, oriented towards helping deployed soldiers families with all questions would do to reinforce the notion that the military establishment believes in the Army Family.

Internet search for relevant Family Support sites for Guard and Reserve offers a lot of PR to the effort but few hard stops (action agencies or officials) for real needs that families can experience. Don’t interpret sentence above to reflect that there is no value in the links out there – but they are not Army or DoD action sites that can step forward with assistance for remote families…. In reality, families in need must get themselves to an installation for any chance at assistance - not always possible.

Presently, the military provides ample staff for public affairs activities to talk and interact with the press, but nothing near equivalent to work with Reserve and Guard families – what does that say about us?

Flags for our predecessors

On Saturday, in what is an annual ritual around the country, I participated in placing flags on veteran’s graves as I have been honored to do for over 10 years now. This is done in all military and civilian cemeteries alike, by soldiers and volunteers. The Flags are provided by the county, service organizations or Federal government – one for each deceased veteran’s grave. Each flag is placed in Broze or aluminum holders pre-placed at each grave site for the purpose.

Americans regard Memorial Day as a day set aside for cookouts, opening the pool, lazy summer days start, afternoon naps, or other summertime pursuits. In today’s high impact lifestyles it often just represents another Monday holiday. The holiday doesn’t have the same spit and polish it did 138 years ago, when Decoration Day, the forerunner of Memorial Day, was established by Union veterans of the Civil War.
Accounts from that time describe:

Citizens were called to "gather around (the veterans') sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime," the official order read. "Let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and to assist those whom they have left among us as a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude.

Locally, Memorial Day and the tradition of putting flags on veterans' graves gets harder every year as veteran’s organizations get smaller, and older. The roster of members placing the flags are just as resolute in their determination to see the gratitude of our country is still communicated directly to veteran families and survivors. Placing a 12 x 18 Flag on a deceased veteran’s grave is a small token of acknowledgement that we remember and appreciate the veteran’s service to this country.

So Readers – on this Memorial Day – consider putting up a flag – wherever you are… enjoy the holiday and give a minute or two reflection on the soldiers that served. Many are living among us and will enjoy the holiday as well but as any veteran can attest - All give some, some gave all.

Oasis in the Desert

On my way back from Iraq in September 2004 I had to stop to await transportation in Kuwait. We were tired and relieved to be going home from a year long tour in Iraq from assignments throughout the country. However, the dusty hot post in Kuwait was yet another delay in boarding the Freedom bird for the States for our Reserve unit members. While in the Kuwait camp I discovered the paradise that was the USO tent…. Imagine a tent with big screen TVs, recliners, books, magazines and cold air conditioning…. Take off your boots and settle in to a living room setting…I will attest it was a slice of heaven in the middle of that camp.

The USO is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide morale, welfare and recreation-type services to our men and women in uniform. The original intent of Congress — and enduring style of USO delivery — is to represent the American people by extending a touch of home to the military. The USO currently operates more than 130 centers worldwide, including ten mobile canteens located in the continental United States and overseas. Overseas centers are located in Germany, Italy, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Qatar, Korea, Afghanistan, Guam, and Kuwait. Service members and their families visit USO centers more than 4.7 million times each year. They also provide some sundries to soldiers going to theater and in airports around the globe. USO volunteers organize the reception and departure at gateway airports for soldiers on R&R and overseas travel as well. This is an organization I see making a difference and really providing for soldiers and their families.

When I got back I looked at their site to discover that the USO is a congressionally chartered, nonprofit organization, and is not a part of the federal government. I know a good organization when I se it... and this is one to note. When people ask me what they can send to soldiers or do for soldiers I always suggest a contribution to the USO ; that organization that impressed me on that hot day on my way out of country. If you are so inclined dear readers – consider a donation, become a partner or volunteer for this organization.

Army National Guard and Reserve Readiness

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves continues to work as directed by Congress to recommend needed changes in law and policy to ensure that the Guard and Reserves are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported to best meet the national security requirements of the United States. This committee continues to meet with senior officials, Active and Reserve Soldiers down to the Major (O-4) level and civilians in its attempt to determine recommendations covering the Guard and Reserves' roles and missions, capabilities, organization and structure, training and readiness, compensation and benefits, career paths, and the funding they receive.

This effort is long overdue for the Reserve Components – it’s a shame it took so long and comes after much of the National Guard and Reserve has already served in the crucible of war with the materials on hand and the minimum support of the past. It is with pride that I can state we have met the missions assigned thus far with the tools at hand in the Reserve Component and did so with pretty fair result. It appears that real change for the better is on the horizon with respect to support for the Reserve Component soldiers, training, funding and equipment. Endearing at the moment is the recent announcement by the Secretary that reflects a new commitment to improving the lot of Guard and Reserve organizations:

May 16, 2007 – The Department of Defense announced today that Secretary Robert M. Gates agrees with the 23 recommendations of the independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves delivered to Congress on March 1.
The Commission’s report, a requirement of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, examined the advisability and feasibility of implementing provisions of the pending National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007, including proposals intended to improve the National Guard’s ability to support both overseas military operations and civilian response to domestic disasters, increase the Guard’s status and resources, and make other changes in Guard leadership, organization, and funding.

As stated in the commission’s web page the high operational tempo of the military over the past four years has significantly increased stress on resources that support the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves to carry out missions at home and abroad. The impacts of resourcing policy, programming, and budgeting on the readiness of reserve components—and the impacts of frequent and lengthy deployments on employers and families—are the subjects of two full days of hearings to be conducted May 16 and 17 by the independent Commission on the National Guard and Reserves.

In these upcoming hearings testimony on Resourcing and Readiness as well as Employer and Family Support will be provided. Employer and Family Support have received scant attention and absolutely minimum resources as an imposed volunteer effort placed upon deployed soldier families in the past and work is required to assist those needs.

The final report of the Commission, to be submitted to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Secretary of Defense in January 2008, will include recommendations covering the Guard and Reserves' roles and missions, capabilities, organization and structure, training and readiness, compensation and benefits, career paths, and the funding they receive. The recommendations won’t be easy or inexpensive for the Active Component key holders, but they are essential to continued sustainment of a Reserve force for use in time of need domestically and in the ongoing global war on terror.

OPSEC or Censure?

Well now, there are clouds of dust stirred up by the new Army Regulation 530-1 which deals with OPSEC and the restrictions that regulation places on Military Bloggers. You can see notes on the restriction below. These restrictions are broad and have the potential to significantly handcuff Military Blogger freedom to report and discuss issues as there is a stated requirement for any Army Soldier, Civilian or contractor to obtain approval for any posts with their unit commander and OPSEC representative. The Regulation is classified…but the specifics can be found with a simple Google search as the topic is getting significant exposure lately.

Many such as Blackfive and Dadmanly and others have reacted to this controversy being noticed in public this week with Noah Shachtman’s article on the OPSEC update in Wired. Since that piece came out, MILBLOGS and other conservative bloggers have reacted, appropriately, in alarm to the new Regulations. What remains to be seen is the myriad of command’s reaction to the OPSEC draconian sounding guidelines. It’s a sure bet they will be far from uniform.

Even though I am retired, and my Blog is maintained from my home, dear reader – it seems my civilian occupation with the Army requires me to get such approval as well with my command. I don’t recall that as a Civilian, I was required to have infringed 1st Amendment rights… it remains to be seen how this will play out in the near future. In the interim I have followed the subsequent guidelines provided by the Army and taken heart in the response from the Regulation’s writer MAJ Ceralde. Lets wait and see how this plays out.

Army Operations Security: Soldier Blogging Unchanged Summary:
America's Army respects every Soldier's First Amendment rights while also adhering to Operations Security (OPSEC) considerations to ensure their safety on the battlefield.

Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of our Soldiers are of utmost importance.

Soldiers, Civilians, contractors and Family Members all play an integral role in maintaining Operations Security, just as in previous wars.

Details:
In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public forum.

Army Regulation 350-1, "Operations Security," was updated April 17, 2007 - but the wording and policies on blogging remain the same from the July 2005 guidance first put out by the U.S. Army in Iraq for battlefield blogging. Since not every post/update in a public forum can be monitored, this regulation places trust in the Soldier, Civilian Employee, Family Member and contractor that they will use proper judgment to ensure OPSEC.

Much of the information contained in the 2007 version of AR 530-1 already was included in the 2005 version of AR 530-1. For example, Soldiers have been required since 2005 to report to their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer about their wishes to publish military-related content in public forums.

Army Regulation 530-1 simply lays out measures to help ensure operations security issues are not published in public forums (i.e., blogs) by Army personnel. Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication. However, AR 530-1 does mention if someone later posts an E-mail in a public forum containing information sensitive to OPSEC considerations, an issue may then arise.

Soldiers may also have a blog without needing to consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer if the following conditions are met:
1. The blog's topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
2. The Soldier doesn't represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
3. The Soldier doesn't use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.

* Army Family Members are not mandated by commanders to practice OPSEC. Commanders cannot order military Family Members to adhere to OPSEC. AR 530-1 simply says Family Members need to be aware of OPSEC to help safeguard potentially critical and sensitive information. This helps to ensure Soldiers' safety, technologies and present and future operations will not be compromised.

* Just as in 2005 and 2006, a Soldier should inform his or her OPSEC officer and immediate supervisor when establishing a blog for two primary reasons:
1. To provide the command situational awareness.
2. To allow the OPSEC officer an opportunity to explain to the Soldier matters to be aware of when posting military-related content in a public, global forum.

* A Soldier who already has a military-related blog that has not yet consulted with his or her immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer should do so.

* Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic.

When is a Veteran not a Veteran

Here is a quiz, dear reader – guess which individual(s) qualify for Veteran’s preference in hiring and retention for Federal jobs in accordance with OPM guidelines

Person 1 – Retired, from the Active Army after a 20 year career, as a Major

Person 2 – Discharged from Active Duty with an Honorable Discharge after 2 years enlisted service 1974-1976.

Person 3 – Army Reserve soldier enters Retired Reserve after 28 years Reserve service (never selected for deployment)

Who did you pick – all three? The answer is: only person 2 qualifies for veteran’s preference. Seems incredible that the two retirees are both excluded - one due to status as a retiree in the grade of Major from Active Duty the other due to the fact that the individual was never called to participate (although trained and maintained readiness) in a campaign awarding a medal or active duty during a covered period.

Military retirees at the rank of major, lieutenant commander, or higher are not eligible for preference in appointment unless they are disabled veterans. (This does not apply to Reservists who will not begin drawing military retired pay until age 60.)

Active duty for training or inactive duty by National Guard or Reserve soldiers does not qualify as "active duty" for preference

The rules are maintained by the Office of Personnel Management which is the HR agency for the Federal Government – as you can guess, we have a hodgepodge of rules that includes some members of the military that served during covered periods of time and excludes others that devote entire careers to serving our country whether active or Reserve.

Today we make costly enticements to our youth to serve, while we snub those that have served with respect to offering them improved consideration for government positions – what kind of message does that send? I believe there is a need and value for continued service member representation throughout the Federal Government. We should at least offer a token to those that have done so much for this country by improving or equitably setting policies for hiring opportunities and retention rights within the Federal Government.

You can see other rules at the US Office of Personnel Management at their Vet Guide http://www.opm.gov/veterans/html/vetguide.asp#2Types

LTC sells his loyalty

LTC Steele processed through Ft. Dix prior to his assignment in Iraq. During that period he and his unit were provided multiple presentations and briefings that laid out the necessity for Operational Security, military discipline, and covered assignment aspects of the mission in Iraq. The training provided measures which are necessary to protect the force. As was quoted to me from one of the training and operations staff at Ft Dix “One could only suppose this officer forgot where his loyalties lay or forgot to pay attention in the Security Class.”

"A hearing opens in Iraq today to determine whether a US officer should be court-martialed for charges including aiding the enemy.
Army Lieutenant Colonel William Steele, a reservist from Virginia serving full time, is accused of nine violations of military law while he commanded a military police detachment at a main detention centre in Baghdad.
The charges include providing an unmonitored mobile phone to detainees, fraternizing with a prisoner's daughter, illegally storing and marking classified material, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter, possessing pornographic videos, failure to obey an order and dereliction of duty regarding government funds.
The most serious charge, aiding the enemy, relates to Steele's time at the jail at Camp Cropper and could carry a death sentence."
KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

One of the charges relates to adherence to General Order #1 which is the statute that prohibits Alcohol or Pornography. The Army views almost everything as Porn in its puritan restrictions on soldier freedoms so I can’t lecture on that charge – we’ll save that for another day.

The charges relating to potentially aiding the enemy, inappropriate actions with respect to prisoners and their families and careless handling of classified materials extend beyond this officer. If these charges are even partially true, he clearly put at risk his unit, and its soldiers as well as other coalition forces. The charges may not warrant the death penalty as we know them now, however this officer is alleged to have needlessly endangered soldiers for what appears to be his own interests. If allegations are proven true he has embodied a soldier that has sold his loyalty and the price of such treason should be significant.

Closing the Local Army Reserve Facilities

In what was a shortsighted method to refurbish the aging Reserve infrastructure, the Army Reserve actively sought and achieved the closure of hundreds of local Reserve Facilities during the last BRAC deliberations. For years with a serious lack of funds, reserve facilities were slowly disintegrating and falling into disrepair. The answer determined by USARC was to plan to build large centralized Reserve facilities (Usually on a military installation) and transfer the reserve units to those facilities using BRAC dollars.

While this sounds like a workable solution to reduce the facility workload for the Army Reserve it will have a negative effect on already strained Reserve recruitment. Consider the requirement as it will exist in Eastern PA – the new 18 Year old soldier must travel 90 miles (2 hours) to attend drill with his/her unit at Ft. Dix, NJ. It is assuming a lot that the 18 Year old has a reliable vehicle, can navigate the distance, receives parental consent or support and has a place to stay overnight at such a distant location. The plan as envisioned works well for senior and more established members of Reserve Units but is impractical for the newest and less resourced enlisted soldiers. Couple the expense of the trip which is un-reimbursed and the traditional small pay check for the weekend drill and the Cost benefit ratio further works against enlistment with the Army Reserve. The National Guard remains local and all other things being equal, provides a better alternative for enlistment and local commutes to drill.

The movement to large centers will crowd and stress lodging, classroom, training facilities if additional resources are not applied to those needs. There will be very little surge capability and major installation events will effectively cripple portions of training resources when they occur.

The Army Reserve asked for this plan when working to offer up the Reserve Centers for BRAC to fund the creation of new Reserve Centers. Refer back here dear reader when the effect on Reserve Enlistment is felt…

Iraqi Weapons Buyback Program

As the clamor over guns in the hands of the wrong people surfaces again here in the States as a result of the terrible and unfortunate events at Virginia Tech – I was reminded of a program that may have some utility in Iraq. In poor/ crime ridden intercity locations here in the states the Police offer gun buyback programs to collect guns from individuals.

Is it conceivable to conduct some sort of weapons buyback program in Iraq – buy back weapons, ammo, explosives, fuses, blasting devices? Think of it – offer $50 dollars for the turn in of an AK47 – offer $1.00 pound for explosives, .01 per bullet – you would be encouraging some enterprising individuals to actually go out and find materials that are currently being used against coalition and Iraqi security forces. IED buried by your neighbor gets reported and turned in for profit instead of left to do its terrible deed. You could offer higher amounts for particularly problematic devices.

OK - naysayers will provide that some will cheat the system and bring in only inoperative weapons, stolen materials, etc… but to my way of thinking, the treat of reporting and opportunist behavior will negatively affect insurgents that would now have to dedicate resources to secure cashes, monitor IEDs, etc…. Imagine that keeping explosives in your house becomes a financial incentive for someone else that results in all sorts of complications. Anyone stumbling across a pile of munitions has discovered the equivalent of gold. The collection mechanism may be a little complicated – the preference would be to be directed to the materials and destroy them in place (to include the location containing them) Harboring or storing materials that are bound to be reported is a no win situation if it means your dwelling sustains collateral damage … quick honey get the mortar rounds out of the house… lets put them in the field, call them in and collect some real cash.

Perhaps the concept and explanation are very crude, but would it work? Would seem relatively inexpensive, drives market forces to raise the cost of the materials for insurgents, provides a real incentive for opportunist to sniff out cashes and storage points. The results may warrant an attempt at least – petty cash in the hands of our soldiers patrolling – handed out when materials are located and collected? May bear some consideration....

Tale of the ID Card

I just received my Reserve Retired Identification card today. I was waxing poetic that after several years of transparency with Active Reserve Identification cards I am now branded again via my bright red Reserve Retired ID as a Reservist. A little history on Reserve versus Active Duty ID cards

In 1997 in a step toward achieving full integration of the active and reserve military components, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen has announced that identification (ID) cards for all active component and Reserve active status U.S. military personnel will now be the same color green. This initiative, which was phased in over several years called for changing the color of the Reserve active status forces identification card (DD Form 2 (Reserve)) from red to green. Reserve active status forces include members of the Selected Reserve, the Individual Ready Reserve, and the active Standby Reserve. Only the color of the card held by these members of the Reserve components will change; there will be no associated changes to current service benefits, privileges and entitlements, unless a change in status occurs.

The change was in response to a pledge made by Cohen in a policy memorandum, calling on the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense to eliminate "all residual barriers structural and cultural" to effective integration of the Reserve and active components into a "seamless Total Force."

Among the many considerations taken into account by DoD officials when authorizing the change were medical benefits and commissary privileges, two primary areas in which active and Reserve personnel have different entitlements. An ID card alone does not automatically authorize access to medical benefits or commissary privileges, both of which will continue to require additional documentation to allow members of the Reserve components to receive them. Eligibility checks for medical benefits are now performed by electronic validation prior to each inpatient and outpatient visit to Military Health Services System facilities. Consequently, the system check, not the ID card, will continue to verify patient eligibility.

For many years, I had an ID card essentially the same as my Active duty brethren – and it only changed when I went on Active duty in a small degree. Since my return from Iraq the card is the same for Active and Reserve Soldiers. Now as a Reserve retiree – I am in receipt of a DD Form 2 (Res Ret) which is unchanged since 1993 – bright red and an obvious indicator that I am Army Reserve retired – so much for that cultural change to effective integration of the Reserve and active components into a "seamless Total Force”. Perhaps I am driven to be more critical now as the Guard and Reserve soldiers serve shoulder to shoulder with Active duty soldiers. None the less the vestiges of the early nineties prevalent Army attitudes towards Reserve service, sits right here in my wallet.

15 Month Tours

It is very troubling that we must continue to change the conditions of deployment for active duty Army soldiers. The recent announcement

“Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard”, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

With the tour to a combat zone for many units in the active force being experienced multiple times the likelihood of 30 to 45 months in combat for today’s soldiers seems a horrific indicator of a force that is very undermanned and over worked. 15 Month Tours, reduced dwell time and repeated deployments indicates the burden of maintaining the troop levels in Iraq is being borne by a force that is too small. Couple the deployment with deplorable conditions in austere forward operating locations, the 360 threat environment and softening public backing is heading the force to a destructive threshold.

I completed 12 months in country and I will tell you it was a long and difficult period of sacrifice and danger. I can’t even grasp the tenacity required by today’s active duty force to return to Iraq with the specter of 15 month tours now and really every potential for extension to that time to an even greater deployment. In the formative period of young soldiers lives we are separating them from a stateside existence for more than half the time they are in uniform. 15 Months in Country and 12 months dwell time stateside is an unsustainable pace for active component soldiers.

Within the Army we should evaluate whether we are using all soldiers available to shoulder the burden of deployment – I’d be curious what percentage of the Army has never deployed to a combat theater – it’s a fair bet that it approached 20% of the force when all soldiers are considered.

As I’m always one to offer ideas in this blog –

Consider significant reduction in military soldier assignments to School staffs, Acquisition positions, Headquarters staffs, installations, depots, etc – Use either retired AC, active and/or retired Reserve, or DA Civilian to work tasks not directly related to warfighting. Assign the harvested Military to deploying troop units as needed.

Consider placement of high deployment soldiers to warrior tasks held by never deployed soldiers. (Recruiting Command, ROTC, Basic Training, etc) This could be done by reviewing all never deployed soldiers and accelerating their reassignment. Take soldiers that have contributed heavily out of the cycle of repeated deployments. This placement would be voluntary.

Do not allow extensions for any non-deployed soldier to remain in a non-deploying position. No hiding from the warfighting job.

Unpopular as heck is the stop loss program – The Army enters into a contract with the soldier – it should not be broken – period. Continuing to violate this will lead soldiers to depart when possible even if it is not in their best interests to do so. In this vein – consider a 1 or 2 year unbreakable volunteer extension for soldiers – The soldier in essence would be able to commit to a shorter duration absolute contract without fear of a stop loss, extension, or other event causing his personal plans to be shelved.

The current Army ideas involve increasing the active force and paying soldiers additional dollars or Leave time to deploy for extended periods of time. These make sense when they can be expected by the soldier, However, every time the established agreements are broken for Army needs, the soldier must question what else lurks down the road.

The soldiers deploying for the third and fourth tours in war zones are real heroes… thankfully we have them serving. We have to distribute the load of serving to the soldiers that have not had the opportunity to deploy and operating in the combat theater to be fair and rest the prime warfighters. We must consider all options available; realistically look at the burden born by our (thus far) willing soldiers. Failing to do so will lead to an unplanned, but not un-forecast, degradation of our Army.

Army Gray Area Retirees coming back?

The term Gray Area Retiree does not apply to the gray hair some Army Retirees may accumulate while in service. Although I certainly have a few as I’m often reminded by my kids ( I think they caused them). This term is used as Army Official lingo to describe the Army Reserve or Guard soldier that have transferred to the Retired Reserve after 20 Years of service but have not yet reached age 60.

Typically a Gray Area Retiree soldier in the Guard or Reserve will serve 20-30 years and complete the transfer from Active Reserve service to the Retired Reserve. Still subject to call up if needed, the former soldier is classified as a gray area retiree until he/she reaches age 60 when they are entitle to the same retirement benefits as those that retire from Active duty. For many Reserve soldiers this means that if you no longer participate in drills or remain in a drill status you file for transfer (when stop loss is not in effect) – typically you may range in age from 37- 60 years old.

Now that I’m one of those Gray Area Retirees, I’m a little struck with the disposal of so many former soldiers to absolute obscurity – Gray Area Retirees could be used to augment overworked Reserve Staffs to train, complete administrative tasks, provide audit or logistical functions, maintain training unit libraries, prepare unit training plans, assist planning and execution. I wonder if something more can be made of their talents.

Typical of this Blog I had a few ideas:
Gray Area Retirees cannot drill for points under current rules, a tremendous disincentive for offering any real effort to assist Guard or Reserve units. Offering Retirement points for a senior retired Reserve NCO or Officer costs the Army little money (one point equals 30-60 cents a month when the reservist starts receiving retirement pay at age 60).

Gray Area Retirees have skills honed over years of service – basic military skills like administration, logistics, training, etc can be completed by Gray Area Retirees replacing the need for in house unit allocation of resources which need to train.

Gray Area Retirees have a wide host of skills. Many have deployed, done many Annual Trainings and intimately know the workings in a Reserve unit.

Gray Area Retirees have access to military Facilities as a benefit thus enabling assistance that requires access to installation support agencies even during most heightened security periods.

Gray Area Retirees can be used to augment Family Readiness Groups during unit deployments. Remember many of them know the Army Bureaucracy and processes.

Training of non-deployable or entry level soldiers in basic skills, annual mandatory training, PMI, and other training could be provided by GAR teams to regions to relieve local commands from resourcing active reserve soldiers to the mission.

How would I implement?
Gray Area Retirees would request and be accepted formally to support a local unit

Only Retired Reserve or Guard soldiers would be considered.

Gray Area Retirees would not wear uniforms or rank – Civilian Clothes - Treated as Civilian Volunteers.

Gray Area Retirees would only be used for classroom and at the Reserve Center training, planning and administrative tasks. No field or hazardous training events.

Gray Area Retirees would serve without regard for rank – therefore a retired LTC / CSM could support a Company Command team doing what the Co Cdr required or requested.

Gray Area Retirees would serve at the convenience of the Reserve unit. The Reserve unit would verify hours of service and support provided using 1380 form.

Retirement points would accrue as done now for IRR soldiers. ARPERCEN would document and add to Retired Reservist account.

What does this give us? – a program that continues to harvest the volunteer spirit and years of experience for recently retired Reserve and Guard soldiers. It is low cost and would potentially provide extra hands to Reserve and Guard units from the most qualified individuals available in local communities. It provides a mutual event that keeps Gray Area Retirees in touch with Reserve and Guard units instead of obscure and detached former soldiers. Is it worth considering?

A shortage of gear

In a July 2005 GAO study "Reserve Forces: An Integrated Plan is Needed to Address Army Reserve Personnel and Equipment Shortages." [GAO] The report offered three primary causes of shortages: (1) Not maintaining AR units with all the equipment and personnel they need to deploy; (2) Current DoD policies that limit deployments; and (3) A shortage of full time support staff to develop and maintain unit readiness.

DOD leadership of the recent past said "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want." Today the equipment for each soldier costs about $17,000. The Army now insists that troops don't go "outside the wire"—leave their heavily defended posts in Iraq—without adequate protection.

It was not long ago that the Pentagon's inspector general reported that troops "experienced shortages of force-protection equipment such as up-armored vehicles, electronic countermeasure devices ... weapons and communications equipment," an unclassified summary of a still secret Jan. 25 report says. "As a result, service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions." Interestingly Gen Schoomaker was noted as dismissing the inspector general's report at a February congressional hearing as "anecdotal in nature."

Well – all due respect to Gen Schoonmaker – I know the IG is correct – I observed first hand in August 2004-Jan 2005 Reserve soldiers assigned to MNSTC-I had to scrounge for weapons to do the job – we managed pretty well except vehicles – the picture is out the window of a Chevy Suburban (Unarmored) south of Baghdad near Mahmudiah on one of many trips I took. That’s an AK-47 sticking out in front of me as all that was issued was an M9 which was unsuitable for our missions. Due to the heroic efforts of the loggies, we transitioned to ever better and more capable equipment in country but it left us exposed in the early going…

Senior Military Leaders may be a little off the realities of the past - in my opinion. But that aside, they need to really evaluate where we are today with equipment readiness throughout the force. There are some signs of a crisis in gear, training, unit readiness and equipment. Beyond the lack of weapons for stateside troops, Army stockpiles of equipment around the globe are shrinking as their contents are siphoned to Iraq, reducing the nation's ability to respond to the next crisis.

Reserve and Guard units struggle with the optempo as force structure of full time support staff to develop and maintain unit readiness still remains funded as it was in the past when units were not in the fight. I have noted before that this issue is critical to Guard and Reserve readiness and capability.

Across DOD we need to rethink the dollar allocation to the most pressing effort. Within Congress we must think twice about where the dollars for un-requested purchases must be drawn from as well as expedient funding. Now is the time to consider that execution could be affected a lack of timely funding for the actual need on the ground. As I have said before – the soldier in the field will make due with what he has, but it is up to us to make sure he has enough to make due.

Allright kids – we have work to do

The president weighed in on the political battle brewing over the appropriations emergency war spending bill. This is the bill I mentioned earlier with over 30 Billion in pork spending being forwarded by Congress. The President goes on record as stating the Delay in War Funds Will Hurt Military Readiness, Morale.

“Further congressional delay in forwarding an appropriate emergency war spending bill to the White House will damage military readiness and morale as well as endanger the nation,” President Bush

Reading the Blogs out there – there are devisive arguments to be found from all sides in this heating political issue – I guess I’m in no man’s land when it comes to placing blame. Here is why

- Funding needs of the Military through constant emergency bills 4 years into the war seems shortsighted – both the President and congress should be able to plan and fund closer to needs via an honest assessment of the cost at the start of the year. Piss poor prior planning creates the need for huge emergency bills which have now become political footballs.

- We are at war – no one should go on Vacation or recess with a military need unanswered – whether the Military can last one month or three – there is work left undone and all know the soldiers will be affected if it remains uncompleted too long. Stay in Washington and do your jobs.

- Throwing out brinkmanship comments like they don’t support soldiers and it will be his fault if soldiers lack resources is not getting the job done. Both sides are playing fast and loose with lives. 60 days without progress on the bill except additional pork and a DOA bill means both sides have failed to achieve commonality of purpose. Congress can remove pork and timelines for later legislation – President must be flexible and accept he is working with a democratic institution…. Rhetoric from either side is not progress.

- Establishing timeline based upon political considerations not result of Military requirements. Stated accurately by the President - "undercut the troops by substituting the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders in the ground, setting an arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq” Conversely We are where we are because of decisions made by the Executive branch – right or wrong – there can be only one commander and chief. Advise and assist in the interests of the country – not your own Parties re-election success is a must.

So it boils down to this – stop the fussing – hammer out an agreement like professionals and not like a couple of school kids. Watching the debates and listening to the rhetoric is disheartening because the victim (the military) is serving with honor and working hard while the legislators bicker and take holiday.

Brits over a barrel in Iran

No one can escape the news about the British Sailors that are being paraded around by the Iranian Government. The Brits are stuck with a situation like we American’s were a few years ago. The UN stands impotent as usual to intercede an effect release of the sailors. The Iranians get to have a filed day making the Brits squirm and flout their self-perceived strength to anyone that will listen.

If the Brits act, they will be pariahs in the world press. If they don’t act they stand to appear as lacking the will to resist similar acts by other nations and appear weaker in all indicators of their countries resolve. Right now they have to play a wait and see card…. There is no clear or easy way out of this situation.

Were the Sailors in Iranian waters – don’t know – does it really warrant this level of saber rattling by the Iranians – only if another agenda is served or it is a test of international capability to react to the military action. It may be that the Iranians screwed up the location and in fact were correct with their own coordinates which were in Iraqi waters to start with….bravado and pride would resist a quiet return of the sailors.

It remains that the Iranians are pushing the world a little bit higher on the escalation scale by their expressions and deeds. They are displaying a belligerence that will only alienate the Western World and seems to be generated to curry relevance and favor with Middle Eastern countries. Let’s hope that a peaceful resolution is within their grasp and the solution they seek.

Let the Soldiers speak

The Defense Department restrictions on Mil-Bloggers essentially muzzle a critical voice from Combat Theaters. DOD has dictated that soldiers can no longer use military resources to maintain a personal website which is a restriction that inhibits military blogging from within theater.

I believe the senior members of DOD are off the mark on the issue… its no surprise that the generation raised on radio and Black and White TV may not fully grasp the potential for Internet broadcast from the players in the GWOT effort. I’m not throwing a stone here – I’m in the same mode – I am in awe at the phenomenon that is text messaging, myspace pages, blogs and so forth. I have to get lessons on the jargon and capabilities online and will never be able to really connect like my own kids can.

Most of the generation that is coming of age is more likely to get their information from computer sources than traditional media outlets. Imagine, if you will, 18-22 year olds communicating directly with their peers about what life in the military is really all about… no filters, no fluff, no stuffy old person’s spin on the message… The Army has a special page, or "channel," on YouTube, and plans to launch its new platform no later than June. Once the platform is operational, soldiers will be able to send their clips to the Army for posting, but videos will "only go on the site with the Army's “blessing," The Army maintains that this effort is to "participate in the YouTube community" and counter some of the "misrepresentations" of the Army and Army life already found on the Web. You suppose the Army machine will really convince anyone other than those of us committed to the cause that its worth viewing?

A well meaning attempt by the Army, but we are missing an opportunity for the real gritty, uncensored truth to be available. Aside from real operational security concerns which are largely oversubscribed and usually temporary or manageable, I don’t think we should fear what our soldiers will have to say. Soldiers that are peers to America’s population at all levels and demographics - real men and women in uniform - can effectively counter much of the negative message that proliferates the internet already. We can get effective broadcast of the military message and what serving is all about.

The Internet is full of videos opposed to the Iraq War and the U.S. military. We have hundreds of thousands of military personnel that can tell pieces of the story from another perspective. Enough with the DOD hysteria and fear for letting soldiers express themselves – Let the Soldiers defend and practice Freedom of Speech.

The heroes left behind

I had the opportunity recently to talk with the spouse of a soldier that died in Iraq about a year ago. The talk centered on how the life shattered by the news of the loss was slowly coming back to acknowledging the realities of living. The chores and trials of work and home life, the acceptance of a new life without the partner and moving on with a reverence for what was and a realistic and evolving optimistic assessment for what the future holds.

It struck me that the strength this person had was really inspirational… they suffered the grievance of a traumatic loss of a loved one in a war zone many miles away. The circumstances of the loss cloudy and never of any solace… friends and family can never really completely understand…just bear witness to the slow healing process.

I never stop being amazed at the true unsung patriot heros that give so much of themselves – the spouses, partners, parents and relatives of those deployed. They must stand back and hope for the best… sometimes to be devastated by bad news of injury or death. They are braver than the soldier in many ways…playing a kind of wait and see game with emotions as they wait for each e-mail, phone call from their deployed soldier. They are always anxious for news of events and a glimpse of what their loved ones are enduring.

As a country we have largely lived our lives with but a blip of the War effort news expressed occasionally on the nightly news and in the papers. We make valiant attempts to acknowledge soldiers – but many of us don’t stop to acknowledge that a soldier’s contribution is soundly backed by many silent members and loved ones.

I admire the strength and contribution of soldier family member support teams those left behind they are patriot and I label them heros as well. I have to admire those that don’t seek a self gratification turning on the ideals of their loved one’s service, respecting the sacrifice that they bear without using it as a platform to espouse hateful and destructive rhetoric against our nation’s leadership. Not that they don’t have every right to be angered at the cause of the loss, but they possess the continued spark of service to country formally shared and don’t seek to gain their solace at the expense of the cause served by their loved one.

Family Readiness

Yesterday in Stand to there was an article on the Army’s Family Readiness Group Deployment Assistant Program

This is a program that assists families with the inevitable events that occur during unit deployments. Unfortunately in the Reserve environment it is in reality a contractor assigned to a Division Headquarters that presses family members to complete volunteer agreements and track time spend in a self justification cycle.

The Army has talked about the program for over 6 years and has never really applied any significant resource to the issue. Active duty units family members have at least the convenience of co-location with rear detachments and installation support, however Reserve unit families are spread across several states and there is no round the clock presence at the Reserve unit to call upon.

In Both the Active and Reserve units it is clear that as stated in the article
“the Army’s current deployment posture overwhelmed the resources of Rear Detachments (RD) and Family Readiness Group (FRG) leaders. Operating a FRG can be a challenge for volunteers and unit leadership. The significance of a properly operated FRG allows deployed Soldiers to remain mission focused while sustaining their families’ well-being.”

The Army has come up with Family Readiness Group Deployment Assistants (FRGDA) but states the funding is not clearly delineated (Read not adequately planned or likely). Adding a contracted assistance or unreliable resource to provide assistance is not a well thought out plan…. So what else could we do to remedy?
Well never short for ideas good or bad - let me throw these out -

1. Recently returned soldiers including especially those injured and not re-deployable could be assigned fulltime duty as Family Support NCOs/ Officers – the soldier is given a real mission and has the experience to aid the families. This would allow time to address follow-on medical care while still serving. Use Reserve injured soldiers for Reserve community and Active soldiers for Active community aligns experience with type of unit.

2. Assign non-deployable IRR soldiers to the mission in lieu of discharge on a voluntary basis. Not as preferred as #1, but makes use of an otherwise lost resource.

3. Address shortage of administrative personnel within Guard and Reaerve Units – overworked fulltime personnel are not able to address administrative tasks necessary to insure soldier insurance, wills, legal documents are in a ready state.

4. Unravel the Tricare bureaucracy – complicated and ever changing eligibility and rules and preferred providers, especially for Reserve Soldiers, results in many issues for Reserve families. Can a constant shared network with civilian providers be considered – i.e. always registered with xxxcare and use civilian provider and network peacetime (to include getting Reserve Physicals and readiness care) and move seamlessly to XXXcare deployed when away on Active duty.

We have to do a better job planning for supporting the entire military community. Our Families share a disproportionate burden for wading through support activities while we are deployed.(in fact we saddle the Families with volunteering for FRG) The answer is not asking the Commander’s or CSM's wife to assume a part time unpaid job as FRG leader – but rests with the Army Leadership to provide real and effective capability to assist families. Apply a few dollars to the issue to get dividends in the long run as familes remain in the military longer.

Domestic Padding for the War effort

It is sleazy politics or business as usual in the Halls of Congress. The new Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' hometown pet projects to secure votes to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year. (read defeat)

Unbelievably the Majority is offering peanut farmers, spinach growers, Shrimp researchers and western farmers bribe money to get the congressional delegates representing those interests to vote for the short sighted Democratic initiative to constrain the War effort. They are mandating a Mandatory Withdraw timetable and Benchmarks, dictate Force levels, and establish readiness restrictions and other mandates based on Congressional/ not military/ specifications. They are doing this in the FY07 supplemental appropriations bill that provides funding for the continuation of the Iraq war.

In all over $30 Billion Dollars of Pork in the bill does not addresses military needs but covers things like Hurricane Livestock Indemnity Program $25 Billion, Shrimp Research $120 Million, Crop Relief Funding $3.7 Billion, Peanut Storage $ 74 Million, There is no connection between billions of dollars in add-on Pork projects and appropriating adequate funds to the military. The endeavor has everything to do with opportunist political maneuvering at the expense of our soldiers in the field. The supplemental legislation that is being offered by the Democratic majority in Congress is a poison pill to our Armed forces freedom of maneuver that closes options to deal with the situation in Iraq and allocates billions in funds to gratuitous pork projects.

Most of us want a successful conclusion to the effort in the Global War on Terrorism... therefore think twice if your elected representative supports this end round political ploy – what he has done is thrown on lots of restrictions that make it harder to execute the fight, smiled at you and tells you he does so in the name of supporting the troops and has padded his domestic needs with some added pork to keep the folks back home happy.