Originally Posted by Ranger

As your own post points out:[my post said, Accurate figures for National Guard and Reserve troops were unavailable at this time]

That's definitely not true, either; the current figures are well known and are readily available.

The entire US military (all the branches combined) breaks down as follows:...

Originally Posted by AP:

Pentagon notifying 47,000 more of coming Iraq tours

By Saurabh Das, Associated Press
Posted 5/4/2004 11:28 AM
Updated 5/4/2004 1:10 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided they need to keep an expanded force in Iraq beyond June and will send 10,000 active-duty Army and Marine Corps troops for one-year tours, defense officials said Tuesday.

There are currently about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

In addition, the Army planned to announce that about 37,000 National Guard and Reserve troops are getting called to active duty to support three National Guard combat brigades that will be sent to Iraq late this year or early in 2005, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

There are now about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The number was to have fallen to about 115,000 this spring, but the latest change of plans would leave the total at about 125,000 to 128,000 after June. That could still change, depending on the security situation between now and June.

About 5,000 Marines and a contingent of about 5,000 soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y., will go this summer to relieve the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, whose soldiers were due to come home in April but were extended until June.

Pentagon officials had said in recent weeks that they were prepared to replace a portion or all of the 20,000 1st Armored and 2nd Cavalry soldiers who are on extended duty in Iraq if Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, believed they were needed.

Abizaid and his subordinate commanders have used the 2nd Armored Cavalry and 1st Armored to deal with outbreaks of violence in and around the Shiite holy city of Najaf and elsewhere in central Iraq.

The Army and Marine Corps are hard-pressed to find substantial additional troops for Iraq duty. Of the Army's 10 divisions, parts or all of nine are already deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 10th Mountain Division, which is mainly a light infantry unit, has soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The group that will go to Iraq this summer is a task force built mainly around the 2nd Brigade, known as the "Commandos," another official said.

The Marine Corps has about 25,000 troops in Iraq, mainly in the western area including the restive city of Fallujah.

Details about the 37,000 National Guard and Reserve troops who are being alerted for Iraq duty were not immediately available. They will provide support for the three National Guard combat brigades that were notified earlier this year that they will be going to Iraq for one-year tours late this year or early in 2005. A large proportion of the 37,000 are Army Reserve, one official said.

Originally Posted by N.Y. Times

A War for Us, Fought by Them
By WILLIAM BROYLES Jr.

Published: May 4, 2004

WILSON, Wyo. — The longest love affair of my life began with a shotgun marriage. It was the height of the Vietnam War and my student deferment had run out. Desperate not to endanger myself or to interrupt my personal plans, I wanted to avoid military service altogether. I didn't have the resourcefulness of Bill Clinton, so I couldn't figure out how to dodge the draft. I tried to escape into the National Guard, where I would be guaranteed not to be sent to war, but I lacked the connections of George W. Bush, so I couldn't slip ahead of the long waiting list. My attitude was the same as Dick Cheney's: I was special, I had "other priorities." Let other people do it.

When my draft notice came in 1968, I was relieved in a way. Although I had deep doubts about the war, I had become troubled about how I had angled to avoid military service. My classmates from high school were in the war; my classmates from college were not — exactly the dynamic that exists today. But instead of reporting for service in the Army, on a whim I joined the Marine Corps, the last place on earth I thought I belonged.

My sacrifice turned out to be minimal. I survived a year as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I was not wounded; nor did I struggle for years with post-traumatic stress disorder. A long bout of survivor guilt was the price I paid. Others suffered far more, particularly those who had to serve after the war had lost all sense of purpose for the men fighting it. I like to think that in spite of my being so unwilling at first, I did some small service to my country and to that enduring love of mine, the United States Marine Corps.

To my profound surprise, the Marines did a far greater service to me. In three years I learned more about standards, commitment and yes, life, than I did in six years of university. I also learned that I had had no idea of my own limits: when I was exhausted after humping up and down jungle mountains in 100-degree heat with a 75-pound pack, terrified out of my mind, wanting only to quit, convinced I couldn't take another step, I found that in fact I could
keep going for miles. And my life was put in the hands of young men I would otherwise never have met, by and large high-school dropouts, who turned out to be among the finest people I have ever known.

I am now the father of a young man who has far more character than I ever had. I joined the Marines because I had to; he signed up after college because he felt he ought to. He volunteered for an elite unit and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When I see images of Americans in the war zones, I think of my son and his friends, many of whom I have come to know and deeply respect. When I opened this newspaper yesterday and read the front-page headline, "9 G.I.'s Killed," I didn't think in abstractions. I thought very personally.

The problem is, I don't see the images of or read about any of the young men and women who, as Dick Cheney and I did, have "other priorities." There are no immediate family members of any of the prime civilian planners of this war serving in it — beginning with President Bush and extending deep into the Defense Department. Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a child in the war — and only half a dozen others have sons and daughters in the military.

The memorial service yesterday for Pat Tillman, the football star killed in Afghanistan, further points out this contrast. He remains the only professional athlete of any sport who left his privileged life during this war and turned in his play uniform for a real one. With few exceptions, the only men and women in military service are the profoundly patriotic or the economically needy.

It was not always so. In other wars, the men and women in charge made sure their family members led the way. Since 9/11, the war on terrorism has often been compared to the generational challenge of Pearl Harbor; but Franklin D. Roosevelt's sons all enlisted soon after that attack. Both of Lyndon B. Johnson's sons-in-law served in Vietnam.

This is less a matter of politics than privilege. The Democratic elites have not responded more nobly than have the Republican; it's just that the Democrats' hypocrisy is less acute. Our president's own family illustrates the loss of the sense of responsibility that once went with privilege. In three generations the Bushes have gone from war hero in World War II, to war evader in Vietnam, to none of the extended family showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pat Tillman didn't want to be singled out for having done what other patriotic Americans his age should have done. The problem is, they aren't doing it. In spite of the president's insistence that our very civilization is at stake, the privileged aren't flocking to the flag. The war is being fought by Other People's Children. The war is impersonal for the very people to whom it should be most personal.

If the children of the nation's elites were facing enemy fire without body armor, riding through gantlets of bombs in unarmored Humvees, fighting desperately in an increasingly hostile environment because of arrogant and incompetent civilian leadership, then those problems might well find faster solutions.

The men and women on active duty today — and their companions in the National Guard and the reserves — have seen their willingness, and that of their families, to make sacrifices for their country stretched thin and finally abused. Thousands of soldiers promised a one-year tour of duty have seen that promise turned into a lie. When Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told the president that winning the war and peace in Iraq would take hundreds of thousands more troops, Mr. Bush ended his career. As a result of this and other ill-advised decisions, the war is in danger of being lost, and my beloved military is being run into the ground.

This abuse of the voluntary military cannot continue. How to ensure adequate troop levels, with a diversity of backgrounds? How to require the privileged to shoulder their fair share? In other words, how to get today's equivalents of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney — and me — into the military, where their talents could strengthen and revive our fighting forces?

The only solution is to bring back the draft. Not since the 19th century has America fought a war that lasted longer than a week with an all-volunteer army; we can't do it now. It is simply not built for a protracted major conflict. The arguments against the draft — that a voluntary army is of higher quality, that the elites will still find a way to evade service — are bogus. In World War II we used a draft army to fight the Germans and Japanese — two of the most powerful military machines in history — and we won. The problems in the military toward the end of Vietnam were not caused by the draft; they were the result of young Americans being sent to fight and die in a war that had become a disaster.

One of the few good legacies of Vietnam is that after years of abuses we finally learned how to run the draft fairly. A strictly impartial lottery, with no deferments, can ensure that the draft intake matches military needs. Chance, not connections or clever manipulation, would determine who serves.

If this war is truly worth fighting, then the burdens of doing so should fall on all Americans. If you support this war, but assume that Pat Tillman and Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back.

Originally Posted by Stars and Stripes

NOTE: "Stars and Stripes", a service-oriented publication which has been THE official newspaper of the US military since WWII, receives funding directly from the Pentagon.

Many servicemembers say morale is low; leaders say job is getting done

By Ward Sanderson, Stars and Stripes

Day Two of a seven-day Stars and Stripes series. Click here to access the series' index page, with links to previous material.

What is the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Answers vary. High-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding.

Some troops on the ground have begged to differ, writing to Stars and Stripes and to others about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units.

There was a correlation between such things as local services and release dates on the one hand, and morale on the other.

Stars and Stripes sent a team of reporters to Iraq to try to ascertain the states of both conditions and morale. Troops were asked about morale, among many other issues, in a 17-point questionnaire, which was filled out and returned by nearly 2,000 persons.

The results varied, sometimes dramatically:

¶ Among the largest group surveyed, Army troops, the results looked much like a bell curve. Twenty-seven percent said their personal morale was “high” or “very high.” Thirty-three percent said it was “low” or “very low.” The largest percentage fell in the middle, saying it was “average.”

¶ Among the second largest group, reservists and National Guard members, the differences were much starker. Only 15 percent said their own morale was “high” or “very high,” while 48 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Among Marines, the next largest group, 44 percent said their morale was “high” or “very high,” and only 14 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Among airmen, the smallest of the four major groups surveyed because fewer questionnaires were allowed to be circulated to them, the results were also very positive. Thirty-nine percent said their morale was “high” or “very high,” and only 6 percent said it was “low” or “very low.”

¶ Very few Navy servicemembers could be found to question in Iraq.

The questionnaire findings can’t be projected to all the servicemembers in Iraq. Still, the reporting of “lows” among the two largest groups surveyed, Army and Reserve/National Guard, seemed significant. The views of these troops, at least, appeared to contrast sharply with those of the visiting VIPs.

Respondents to the survey were not given a definition of morale. They responded according to what they interpreted the word to mean. Some believe morale reflects the degree of well-being felt by the servicemember. On the other hand, commanders say that in measuring morale, they want to know if the servicemember is following orders and getting the job done.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, said that low morale isn’t an issue because troops are fulfilling the mission.

“Morale is … not necessarily giving them Baskin-Robbins,” he said in a Stars and Stripes interview. “Sometimes it’s being able to train them hard and keep them focused in a combat environment so they can survive.

“So at its most fundamental level within our Army, taking care of soldiers and their morale could have very few worldly comforts. But the morale of the soldier is good. He’s being taken care of, he’s accomplishing his mission, he’s being successful in the warfighting.”

Other military leaders say they are always looking at ways to improve the morale of their troops. “Morale begins with caring leaders looking their soldiers in the eye,” said Lt. Col. Jim Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. “When senior leaders visit the troops in Iraq, they relate that the troops tell them that morale is good, a fact that’s backed up by re-enlistment and retention rates.”

(These rates have been acceptable or good for the services overall. Figures for re-enlistments in Iraq are not available yet, officials said. In the Stripes survey, half or more respondents from the Army, Marines and Reserves said they were unlikely to stay in the service. Officials say re-enlistments normally drop after conflicts.)

Cassella said that leaders visiting Iraq seek out the opinions of troops. Some say the views expressed may be distorted as a result of the nature of the get-togethers, “dog and pony shows,” in the words of combat engineer Pfc. Roger Hunsaker.

“When congressional delegations came through,” said one 36-year-old artillery master sergeant who asked not to be identified, commanders “hand-picked the soldiers who would go. They stacked the deck.”

Others on the ground in Iraq think top leaders are right more times than they are given credit for.

“I heard that reporters/politicians were trying to say morale was down out here,” Petty Officer Matthew W. Early wrote on his questionnaire at Camp Get Some in southern Iraq. “What do people back home expect us to feel after a war? Are we supposed to be as happy here as we are with our friends and families back home? Hell no.

“Of course, when confronted by reporters, we’re going to voice our opinions about our situation. Unfortunately, some people like to complain about how they live or what they don’t have. The complaint concerning morale is the voice of the minority, not the majority.”

In the Stripes survey, troops consistently rated their unit’s morale as lower than their own. John Kay, marketing director for the Army Research Institute, said, “Soldiers always rate self [personal] morale higher than unit morale. This is nothing new.”

Troops may wish to report what they perceive as the true morale situation without getting themselves into trouble, a way of saying, “I’m OK, but the unit’s not.”

Some of the gap can also be the result of hearing other troops complain, compounding the impression that unit morale is low, even if each complainer believes his or her own morale is better.

“Both are true,” said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist with Northwestern University.

The military studies morale regularly, but “the further you go up the chain in the officer corps, the reality of day-to-day morale cannot register completely,” said Lt. Col. Daniel Smith, retired chief of research for the Center for Defense Information. “Whereas when you talk to the platoon sergeants, platoon leaders and even company commanders, you get a better sense of the true state of affairs. Do the weapons work? Are they getting hot meals? Are they getting enough rest? Are their leaders competent and not taking unnecessary risks?”

Unlike some officials who have visited Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a September stop in Iraq, spoke not about morale per se, but about the importance of the mission and about sacrifice.

“You’re people ... who weren’t drafted, you weren’t conscripted, you searched your souls and decided that you wanted to step forward and serve your country,” he told the 4th Infantry Division, according to a Pentagon transcript.

Another speech to air assault soldiers of the 101st Airborne division echoed the sentiment:

“The important thing I would also add is that every one of you is a volunteer. You all asked to do this, and that is impressive and it's appreciated.”

Originally Posted by Stars and Stripes:

Neither rank nor age is a predictor of who stays and who separates, said Taylor, troop re-enlistment NCO. “You got a staff sergeant with 12 years in versus the private. And you think someone with 12 years in would re-up, but they’re the ones we’re losing.”

Asked if reducing deployments to six months from a year would help retention, Paris and Taylor agreed it wouldn’t make any difference. Soldiers know they’ll be deployed the same amount because there’s too few soldiers doing too many jobs, they said.

Hundreds of interviews across Iraq tend to bear out the observations of Taylor and Paris. Of the nearly 2,000 servicemembers surveyed by Stars and Stripes, 31 percent said they were “very likely” or “likely” to stay in the military; 49 percent said they were “not likely” or “very unlikely” to stay in.

“I can’t do another rotation!!!” Staff Sgt. Gilbert Gonzales, 27, Troop F, 2nd Squadron, 3rd ACR, wrote on his survey.

One reservist cited deployments, poor living conditions and lack of communications as issues that he thinks will lead to “mass exits.”

Master Sgt. C. J. Nouse, 39, with the 372nd Military Police Company, is in his second deployment since Sept. 11, 2001. “In the last two years, I’ve only seen my family four months,” he wrote. If the military can’t improve conditions and slow down operation tempos, “I know these brave men and women WILL exit the military when they get home.”

Originally Posted by China Daily

Survey indicates US troop morale problems in Iraq
(2003-10-17 11:11) (Agencies)

The Pentagon's top general expressed concern on Thursday over a survey suggesting major morale problems among the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he was sometimes allowed to talk only to "happy" troops.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters he was personally worried that when he and other top officers visited troops, they were only allowed to talk to "all the happy folks."

"I want to see the folks that have complaints. And sometimes they won't let them near me," Myers said when pressed about the Stars and Stripes newspaper survey in which half of 1,939 troops responding said morale in their unit was low or very low and that they did not plan to reenlist in the military.

The newspaper, which receives funding from the Pentagon, also said that a third of the survey respondents complained that their mission lacked clear definition and characterized the war in Iraq as of little or no value.

"It is useful insight," said Myers. "Morale is really important because it's people who get the job done."

Four in 10 respondents to Stars and Stripes said jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training. Some called their tasks "make work."

The findings conflicted with statements by U.S. commanders in Iraq and Bush administration officials that portray the forces there as gung-ho and well-prepared.

The survey also suggested that difficult conditions in Iraq and prolonged tours of duty have left the U.S. military so stressed that it could cause a major exodus from the armed forces.

'NONSCIENTIFIC,' SAYS RUMSFELD

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the Pentagon briefing that military recruitment and enlistment figures did not appear to reflect the complaints among Reserve and National Guard troops and their families about yearlong tours of duty in Iraq.

Rumsfeld and Myers said there might be a problem in the part-time Army Reserve but they did not specify what it was. Both vowed to improve predictability in troop deployment.

"I'm told it was an informal and admittedly nonscientific poll," said Rumsfeld.

"I do talk to a great many of the troops. They seem up and recognizing the importance of the task they're doing and proud of what they're doing," he told reporters.

"On the other hand, I'm sure that you could go to any one of those groups and find people who are concerned about something, or unhappy, or don't have sufficient access to Internet or telephone to their families."

The secretary said that one problem being addressed was that the families of active forces tended to be live close together around military bases in natural support groups.

But part-time Guard and Reserve members in a single unit could be spread over four or five states, he added.

Rumsfeld and Myers addressed troop morale after the Army said that at least 13 U.S. troops have committed suicide in Iraq, representing more than 10 percent of American noncombat deaths there, and that it had dispatched a suicide-prevention expert to assess the problem.