The Perfect Soldier: Special Operations, Commandos, and the Future of Us Warfare by James F. Dunnigan
More Books by James Dunnigan
|
Dirty Little Secrets
Why It's Dangerous to be a Reservist in Iraq
by James Dunnigan
December 16, 2004
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
The army still takes the most casualties in Iraq, as has been the case with
armed forces throughout history. Out of 1,235 troops killed (combat and
accidents) in Iraq, the army has lost 858 dead, the marines 350, while the air
force and navy combined have lost 27. For every 1,000 active duty army troops
sent to Iraq, 2.64 have died. For the National Guard and reserves, about two
soldiers have died for every thousand sent over. The marines, navy and air force
send troops over for different length tours, so their death rates are not
comparable. But the marine rate is probably closer to 3 per thousand, while the
air force and navy rate is under 1. For every death, there are about eight more
wounded or injured.
Most of the fighting is being done by active duty
troops, and most of the reserve (including National Guard) troops are in support
jobs. Despite that, reserve troops are suffering nearly as many casualty as the
active duty troops. The relatively high rate for National Guard and reserve
troops is attributable to a number of factors. The main one is that they are
less well trained. The army doesn’t like to talk about this one, because the
official word has always been that the part time soldiers are able to serve as
effectively as their active duty brethren. But ever since the modern reserve
system was invented in the 19th century, it has been common knowledge that the
reservists are always less well prepared for combat. For most of the last two
centuries, this was not a major issue. The reservists would take more
casualties, be less effective, but would catch up after a few months of combat.
In the United States, if was felt that, since most reservists are non-combat
troops were, and would only be used in a major war, this would not be a
problem. Reserve combat troops would eventually catch up in the experience
department. Recently drafted men, trained for less than a year and sent into
combat, usually suffered higher casualties as well. The whole point of having
reserve troops was to have more trained military manpower on short notice. But
it’s becoming an issue in Iraq. However, no one should have any doubts about
why.
In addition to less training, the reservists also have equipment
problems. Reserve units get new gear after active duty troops are taken care of.
This is often remedied for troops headed for Iraq by issuing the reservists with
the new stuff before they go. But this means the reservists are still getting
used to the new gear. An attempt has been made to remedy this by giving the
reservists months of additional training before shipping them out. This helps,
but it does not completely solve the problem.
Another reason for the
higher reserve casualty rate has to do with the unique nature of the Iraq
operations. Most of the attacks on American troops are directed at troops in
vehicles on the road. The Iraqi gunmen already knew, from experience in 1991 and
2003, that they could not expect to do much against American combat troops. So
the Sunni Arab rebels rely on roadside bombs and ambushes. Most of the troops
caught up in this are non-combat reserve troops, who are, along with active duty
non-combat troops, taking higher casualties as a result. Most of the reserve
combat troops have been assigned to guarding bases in Iraq. They have done very
well at this, as one can see from nearly non-existent attacks on these bases
(except for the mortars and rockets, which are not accurate enough to do
substantial damage.)
There’s no easy solution for this situation.
Additional training helps, but is unpopular with the reservists because it keeps
them on active duty longer. The main reason for the gap between active duty and
reserve troops is experience. Not just with the troops, but also with the
officers. In fact, the reserves have long had an officer shortage. The reserve
officers have a higher workload than the enlisted troops and it’s been
increasingly difficult to get the number needed. As a result, reserve units are
usually sent off to Iraq with a lot of last minute officer additions, scrounged
up wherever they could be found. The lack of experience also extends to some of
the NCOs, even through the National Guard has long had success in recruiting men
and women who just finished three or more years of active duty.
What the
army has done to address the problem is put a lot of effort into making the
convoys better able to handle the attacks. But this does not get away from the
basic fact that the reservists will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to
training, experience and the ability to avoid casualties.
|
|
