Set aside the fact that we are (inconveniently, from a liberal Democrat perspective) winning in Iraq. We've been hearing from the Left that the US military is broken and defeated, and that's why we need to cut-and-run from Iraq.

One year ago, as President Bush decided to send more troops to Iraq, the conventional wisdom in Washington among opponents of the war was that the U.S. Army was on the verge of breaking.

In December 2006 former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell warned, "The active Army is about broken."

Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in a much-cited memo to West Point colleagues, wrote: "My bottom line is that the Army is unraveling, and if we donÂ’t expend significant national energy to reverse that trend, sometime in the next two years we will break the Army just like we did during Vietnam."

Army Maj. Gen. Bob Scales, the former head of the Army War College, agreed. He wrote in an editorial in the Washington Times on March 30:

"If you haven't heard the news, I'm afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. ... Today, anecdotal evidence of collapse is all around."

But interestingly enough, Scales now admits that his assessment was dead wrong.

But now, one year later, Scales has done an about-face. He says that he was wrong. Despite all the predictions of imminent collapse, the U.S. Army and the combat brigades have proven to be surprisingly resilient.

According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so — a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal.

Scales, a FOX News contributor, said he based his assessment last year "on the statistics that showed a high attrition among enlisted soldiers, officers who were leaving the service early, and a decline in the quality of enlistments," a reference to the rising number of waivers given for "moral defects" such as drug use and lowered educational requirements.

"In fact, what we've seen over the last year is that the Army retention rates are pretty high, that re-enlistments, for instance, particularly re-enlistments in Iraq and Afghanistan, remain very high," Scales said. He noted that re-enlistments were high even among troops who have served multiple tours.

Not only that, but the predicted loss of those often considered to be the backbone of the military just hasn't happened.

But Scales says the desertion by mid-grade officers — captains and majors — just hasn’t occurred as predicted.

"The Army's collapse after Vietnam was presaged by a desertion of mid-grade officers (captains) and non-commissioned officers," Scales wrote a year ago. "Many were killed or wounded. Most left because they and their families were tired and didn't want to serve in units unprepared for war....

"If we lose our sergeants and captains, the Army breaks again. It's just that simple. That's why these soldiers are still the canaries in the readiness coal-mine. And, again, if you look closely, you will see that these canaries are fleeing their cages in frightening numbers."

But an internal Army document prepared at the request of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and obtained by FOX News suggests that the comparison to the "hollow Army" of 1972 near the end of the Vietnam War is inappropriate.

The main reason: Today's Army is an all-volunteer force, and the Army in Vietnam largely was composed of draftees.

Captain losses have remained steady at about 11 percent since 1990, and the loss of majors has been unchanged at about 6 percent.

"To date, the data do not show heightened levels of junior officer departures that can be tied directly to multiple rotations in Afghanistan or Iraq," the internal Army memo concludes.

In other words, the phenomena that were supposed to be indicative of the weakening of the US military just are not happening. And while that may be disturbing to those whose political goals require the defeat of the American armed forces, it is ample reason for Americans to reject the defeatism which would have been appropriately labeled as defeatism and sedition in an earlier generation, back when patriotism and support of the military were still strongly held values among Democrats, not just Republicans.

Posted by: Greg at 06:35 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 764 words, total size 5 kb.