In a world that is full of armed conflict, the quality of the army of any country is an aspect that must be taken seriously. This is because, in the case of external aggression, it is the army that will be directly responsible for the defense of the people. The issue of a credible military becomes even more pertinent in bigger nations such as the United States that are always trying to participate in peacebuilding in most parts of the world. Is there any problem with the army today?
The unconcerned citizen may not notice any problem with the army but any officer serving in the military will be able to point out several serious issues that have compromised the credibility of the army. This is happening at a time in history when the world stage demands that the United States possess a military force that not only sends the enemies shaking with fear but also the ally smiling with the confidence of being a friend to a country that can rise to the occasion and defend its people as well as the ally in case of an attack. So what are these problems that are likely to be the downfall of the greatest military force in the modern world?
The first problem that the army is facing is what this essay will call a compromised enlisting criterion (Kaplan para. 1). For a long time, the army has held on to its creed of recruiting men and women whose physical ability, mental agility, and emotional capability were above average. These standards were maintained even at times when there were few willing recruits and the army leadership had to go round the country to sweet-talk young people into enlisting. What has now changed? The current recruitment criterion seems to be different from the one that the past recruiters used given the qualities that are inherent in the young people who are recruited into the army today. The major requirements as identified above must be present in an individual if he or she is to serve in the army expectedly. However, the people recruited these days to have a deficiency of one or all of these qualities. Some of the recruits are physically fit but mentally challenged; meaning that they have the bodies but no brains. It is almost obvious that once the mental ability is compromised, the emotional capacity is torn to pieces too. Others are mentally able but physically challenged; meaning that the young men and women have all the brains that they need but they lack the physical capacity to accomplish any army task. This is a huge threat to our army and an urgent solution is needed before it is too late.
Far from the above, the army also faces the problem of not being able to carry out comprehensive checks on the criminal backgrounds of the recruits. The demanding nature of the army calls for recruits whose character is beyond reproach. Thus when shallow background checks are carried out and people with criminal records end up in the army, the quality of the army gets compromised. The background checks are supposed to be followed by continued monitoring so that any later involvement in crime is detected before it gets to disastrous levels. Cases of officers who have turned against fellow officers and killed them are not uncommon these days. What is better between death from enemy fire and death from a fellow officer wearing the same uniform like you? There is no reason to survive enemy fire only to be shot and killed by a colleague. The Fort Hood incident where an officer with behavior problems turned against his colleagues is an example (Bumiller & Shane para.1). The concerned soldier turned his weapon on his colleagues and killed more than ten of them after they had survived an enemy fire on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. These heroes evaded the war zone bullets only to be taken down by a colleague’s bullets right at home. Is it that there was no one to establish the culprit’s long-running behavior problems?
Another issue that has compromised our military is unnecessary commitment or deployment by the leadership. There are times when some conflicts are better left on their own given that over-involvement in a military sense is a potential source of anti-American sentiment. This sentiment is counterproductive in that the people amongst whom the army serves turn against these army officers and can sabotage the military activities by hiding information regarding the enemy and even fighting against American soldiers. The Iraq war has been largely declared an unnecessary war because it was based on intelligence that was improperly collected, inadequately analyzed, and hastily acted upon (Bamford 2-7). If this process had been done according to the law, the inherent weakness of Saddam Hussein as a small dictator with great chest-thumping ability would have been known before the invasion and a different method would have been used. For example, the empowerment of Iraq citizens to engineer an uprising would have been used instead of a full invasion by the military. But since the army is on the ground, it is only good to complete the job. The point is that regardless of the politics of the day, it is important to deploy in strategic areas to avoid too much pressure on army resources.
Also, political influence and low numbers of recruits are issues that are part of the bigger set of problems that will be the source of the army’s downfall. In some cases, presidents who get elected decide to elevate their friends into senior army positions. This may be the right thing to do if there is a sign of lack of support for the decisions of the Commander in Chief. But changing officers in the army without any reason can be a great source of disruption especially if this is done during an ongoing conflict where the United States Army is involved. Upon his election as president, Obama retained the secretary of defense, Robert Gates (Dreazen & King para.1). In an impartial and non-political way, president Obama did the right thing. This is because the country is involved in so many armed conflicts, and a disruption of the leadership on political grounds would have been counterproductive for the army. In my opinion, this is how I think it should be. With the low numbers of recruits, it is becoming extremely difficult to get young men and women who are ready to enlist. This will eventually lead to a shortage of manpower; the last thing that should befall the army. These are the issues that need to be dealt with if we are to continue setting standards for military leadership in the world.
In the case of one thing that I would change if I had the chance, it would be the return to the old way of recruiting the best young people to the army. It is the only way to maintain high standards.
In conclusion, the army is facing problems such as a compromised recruitment criterion, lack of proper background checks on recruits for involvement in crime, political influence, and unnecessary deployment. But the biggest of all these is the compromised recruitment criterion, and if I am given a chance, this is what I would change.
Works Cited
- Bamford, James. A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. New York: Doubleday.2004.Print.
- Bumiller, Elisabeth & Shane, Scott. “Pentagon Report on Fort Hood Details Failures.” The New York Times., 2010.
- Dreazen,Yoch & King,Neil. “Obama to Retain Gates as Defense Secretary.”The Wall Street Journal., Web.
- Kaplan,Fred. “Dumb and Dumber:The U.S. Army lowers recruitment standards … again.”Slate Magazine., 2008.