I'm getting a bit weary of a few retired general officers invited by cable news programs to offer their views, suggest or say outright that the strain being placed on the Army as a result of having to fight two distinctively different wars is not that bad. A few like MG (Ret) Bob Scales and GEN (Ret) Barry McCaffrey are more realisitc in their views, and correctly represent what's really going at ground level. What others like them suggest, however, is much farther from reality, and seems to be based on what they hear from within the halls of the Pentagon, rather than what they might see themselves were they to get down with the troops a bit more. Generals McCaffrey and Scales, to their credit, have been down at ground level, and are not at all hesitant to tell it like it is.
When I hear some say that a 15-month combat tour, followed by 12-24 months of "dwell time" in between rotations ought to have minimal impact on morale, I recall what I've actually seen at locations such as Forts Bragg and Leonard Wood, where in the case of the former many have more that three combat rotations since 2003, and at the latter where instructors and Drill Sergeants are being asked to do more with less. For example, where is the "dwell" in dwell time when people are working harder with longer hours away from families when they are at home, compared to what they were doing while deployed? Consider those who have indeed returned "home", but are required to spend significant time away from families, engaged in peacetime missions such as fire fighting, disaster recovery, and training elsewhere with equipment that's not available locally because all unit equipment was left behind in the combat zone.
There are not enough troops in the force today to execute all the missions required at home and overseas (especially within the Army National Guard). Regardless, some retired general officers and editorial writers keep suggesting we don't have a major problem today in the Army. Saying so does not make it so.
