Army Considers Longer Combat Tours Again
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, June 19, 2007 |
Just weeks after announcing shorter tours to provide more stability for its troops, the Army is contemplating longer tours.
The Army is considering whether it will have to extend the combat tours of troops in
Iraq if President Bush opts to maintain the recent buildup of forces through spring 2008. Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren testified Tuesday that the service is reviewing other options, including relying more heavily on Army reservists or Navy and Air Force personnel, so as not to put more pressure on a stretched active-duty force.Most soldiers spend 15 months in combat with a guaranteed 12 months home, a rotation plan that already has infuriated Democrats because it exceeds the service’s goal of giving troops equal time home as in combat. In coming weeks, the Senate will vote on a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would restrict deployments.
“It’s too early to look into the next year, but for the Army we have to begin to plan,” Geren told the
Senate Armed Services Committee. “We have to look into our options.”
It may well be that longer tours and more Reserve call-ups are simply logistically demanded by the operations tempo. You’d think, though, that Pentagon planners would have been able to figure that out before announcing a policy of doing just the opposite.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
Just weeks after announcing shorter tours to provide more stability for its troops,
Won't longer tours actually promote more stability? With guys shifting in and out, the Army loses soldiers with valuable experience. I am not sure why they are shifted out of combat at all. Other than a two week vacation, they should be kept where the Army needs them--not slacking it stateside because of some arbitrary limit set by a bureaucrat somewhere.
Yeah, I'm sure 2 weeks vacation will more than make up for the 102 weeks of being shot at. Good thing you're over there 24/7/365 instead of slacking stateside, right?
In light of all this, does anyone still think the "surge" was anything more than a way to increase permanent troop levels by disguising it as a more acceptable "temporary" increase? Who here thinks we'll be reducing the number of troops in Iraq by any significant amount before 2009?
I believe the military slang for this is BOHICA.
For some reason my prior responses are not appearing - Triumph, i hope you are joking about the "slacking stateside" - go visit an Army installation between rotations to the sandbox.
Comments are Closed
