Dempsey looks to 1st AD's next mission

[lebkuchen]

When Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey learned his 1st Armored Division soldiers would be ordered to stay and fight longer than any U.S. soldiers have in half a century, he asked for two things.

“I said, ‘Keep the unit together. Don’t parcel us out.’ And I said, ‘Give us a mission,’” Dempsey said during an interview this week.

<cut>

The pace of the past year has been “absolutely frenetic,” Dempsey said, and challenging in many ways. It can’t be compared to two-year tours in Europe during World War II, for instance, in which fierce battles alternated with long lulls, and battle lines were clearly marked.

“This is 24-7, 365, 360-degrees,” Dempsey said.

<cut>

The division’s success was not without sacrifice. Asked about casualties, Dempsey knew the numbers by heart: 77 soldiers were killed in action over the past year, about half from roadside bombs and half from small-arms fire, he said. Thirty-one others died in accidents or from illness. Nearly 900 were wounded.

<cut>

Dempsey said in his 30-year career, he had seen no other U.S. soldiers required to stay in a combat zone for more than one year, including Vietnam.

The Pentagon has pledged to pay extended soldiers an extra $1,000 a month. There’s really only one other thing that can be done for them, Dempsey said.

“I’ve been to a hundred-and-some memorial services,” he said. “Commanders say to each other, ‘Make it (the sacrifice) matter.’


http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=21723

[frylock]

1. wow.. a whole extra thou a month

[teryang]

2. "Make the sacrifice matter"

Catchy sound. Meaningless as a matter of policy. Defense economics 101, "sunk costs are no costs." It doesn't matter how much you have lost up to now on a futile project, effort or mission, the only relevant consideration is future costs. Do the reasonably anticipated benefits justify further losses? Are there any reasonably anticipated benefits?