Four Army Divisions ( 40% of active duty force ) not combat ready !!!!

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Army Will Face Dip in Readiness
4 Divisions Need to Regroup After Iraq

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01


Four Army divisions -- 40 percent of the active-duty force -- will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months next year, leaving the nation with relatively few ready troops in the event of a major conflict in North Korea or elsewhere, a senior Army official said yesterday.

The four divisions -- the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Armored and the 4th Infantry -- are to return from Iraq next spring, to be replaced by three others, with a fourth rotating into Afghanistan. That would leave only two active-duty divisions available to fight in other parts of the world.

Briefing reporters at the Pentagon, the official said the four returning divisions will be rated either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, for 120 to 180 days after they return as vehicles and helicopters are overhauled and troops are rested and retrained.

C-3 means a division is capable of performing only some of its combat missions, and C-4 means a division needs additional manpower, training or equipment to fight a major regional war.

A fifth division, the 3rd Infantry, which returned from Iraq in August, is still not fully ready to return to combat, the official said.

While the Army had been using 120 days as its standard for "resetting" divisions returning from overseas deployments, overhauling the divisions returning from Iraq could take as long as 180 days because of the extreme weather in Iraq and the unprecedented magnitude of the planned troop rotation.

The four returning divisions will bring 650 helicopters, 5,700 tanks and other tracked vehicles and 46,000 wheeled vehicles with them, the official said. "This is not Hertz rent-a-car, where you drive [vehicles] for two years and you get rid of the fleet," he said. "We have to take good care of our tanks . . . and all the other equipment. Because we don't get to buy new."

Once those divisions return from Iraq, Army readiness will be at its lowest point since the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since then, Army officials have tried to keep divisions at the highest, C-1 readiness level.

This dip in readiness could have political consequences for President Bush, who sharply criticized the Clinton administration during the 2000 campaign for allowing two Army divisions to fall to the lowest readiness category in 1999 because of peacekeeping obligations in the Balkans.

"Obviously, this is much worse in terms of the numbers," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who has called for increasing the size of the Army. "This is an indication of the stress the Army is under."

With all of the Democratic presidential candidates criticizing Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and his overall stewardship of foreign policy, the strategic implications of the Army's low readiness rates could also become an issue in the campaign.

"It's called dangerous," said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who has been calling for 40,000 more Army troops -- the equivalent of two divisions -- since 1995. "The purpose of the military is to stand ready, to face dangers as they appear. Afghanistan came out of the blue, and fortunately we were able to respond."

The Army official acknowledged that four divisions rated C-3 or C-4 represent a "risk" in the nation's strategic posture. But he added: "It's a manageable risk. We've looked at this thing several ways from the joint [inter-service] perspective. It's a manageable risk."

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the forces would be available if they were needed. "The fact that you have personnel, for example, on leave, or in school, does not mean that they could not be reconstituted in units on rather short order," said the spokesman, who asked not to be quoted by name. "So the idea that you're placing the country at risk is probably an inaccurate and inappropriate way to look at it."

Military analysts differ over the significance of divisions scoring low on the Army's readiness rating system.

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a former division commander and staunch advocate of more Army forces, said four to five divisions below the C-1 rating "means literally half the Army is broken and not ready to fight."

"We have a potential huge challenge from North Korea," McCaffrey said. "So by definition, at this point, we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It's an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively about readiness, said the Army's system for gauging readiness is suspect and should not be overemphasized.

Although overhauling 650 helicopters used in Iraq will be a lengthy process, O'Hanlon acknowledged, the job of resetting four divisions back from Iraq would at most delay the Army's ability to respond to a major provocation by North Korea by a month or two.

"It's sort of like the New York Yankees in January," O'Hanlon said. "Their readiness is lower because they haven't gone back to spring training. But they're still a damn good baseball team."

The Army's dip in readiness will almost certainly be used by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill pushing for an increase in Army troops, which Rumsfeld has thus far opposed.

Earlier this week, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that they, along with Rumsfeld's staff, are still trying to determine whether the requirement for Iraq, which now stands at 130,000 soldiers, is a "spike" that will soon come down, or an ongoing commitment.

If it is a spike, they said, increasing the size of the Army may not be necessary.

Critics of the administration respond that even the most optimistic military commanders believe 50,000 or more U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for three to five more years.

[39mto39g]

Could also be the Berkly sun.
What does the post know about military readyness. There point of view is not one to which I am in agreement with.
I don't care what the Dixie Chicks think either.
Big doss of BS

Ron

[MORTARDUDE]

For the record, these are the sources cited in the article above.

a senior Army official said yesterday.

the official said

official said.

Army officials

said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.),

said Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.),

A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution

members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

[39mto39g]

And you make my point for me.


A spokesman for Ron

[MORTARDUDE]

Ron :

Not sure what your point was, but that works for me.

Larry

[Markdg]

I am so sorry I thought the combat readiness designation of a unit was classified. At least it was till 1990. A unit at such a low designation is no surprise. I would be surprised if we were talking about a forward deployed unit. At least we are not reenacting Vietnam and rotating people. I like the concept of rotating units and then rebuilding in the states.

[SuperScout]

Of all the named sources cited in the article in question, or questionable article, take your pick, all of them have a left-leaning agenda, if not outright bias. And as a matter of record, reporters have long used the ruse of "...an unnamed source....", and we are to automatically assume (1) honesty, (2) absolute accuracy of reported facts, (3) the absence of bias or agenda, and (4) that he isn't a graduate of the Jayson Blair School of Journalism. IN reading this article, it is to yawn.

And as most of us will remember, there still exists the "GI's Theory of Work/Time Continuum": work will expand in direct proportion to the time allocated for its completion. Give a GI 30 minutes to clean his weapon, and he'll normally take 29.5 minutes. Ask him to perform the same task in 15 minutes, and he'll be ready for inspection in 14.7 minutes. If an Army division is told to get ready for redeployment by the end of an 90-day period, my money is on their meeting or exceeding that requirement.

[frisco-kid]

Welcome to the site. As a Vet's Counselor you're gonna be busy around here. There's definately alot of us that needs counseling. We have a self-appointed counselor on here now [Keith Hixson], but I know he sometimes feels overwhelmed at times. I'm sure he will appreciate the help .

Now, as the FNG, here's your pallet of sand bags to fill. Have a nice day

[MORTARDUDE]

Make light of the article all you want. Our active duty Army divisions are in shitty shape. Dance arouind it all you want, but it is true.

Larry

[MORTARDUDE]

Markdg :

Welcome to the site !!

Larry