Soldiers on multiple tours risk PTSD, quite clearly. But critics of the war who say a particular division is going back for a third or fourth tour make the mistake of thinking this means the soldiers of those units are going back for a third or fourth tour. I pointed out this error in this post:
Most soldiers in each brigade, I imagine, being new Army privates, will be on their first tour. Many soldiers will be on a second tour. And some smaller amount will indeed be on a third or maybe even fourth tour in very rare cases (Marines can have more tours if not more months in Iraq since until the last year they had 7-month tours). Of those multiple-tour soldiers, many will have different jobs, so even multiple tours don't necessarily mean that an individual is on multiple combat MOS tours.
I worry about the strain on our Army. We need to address it. But when I read arguments like this that are distinct from the reality of the problem, I grow weary of even trying to debate the anti-war side about Iraq. The most vocal voices--certainly all of the far Left--are simply not interested in having an honest debate.
Michael O'Hanlon makes this sensible point, and provides numbers for my guesstimate:
As of early 2008, among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq, more than 197,000 had served more than once, and more than 53,000 had deployed three or more times.
So that means 62% served one tour, 28% served two tours, and 10% served three or more tours in Iraq. This is not the picture of the nearly crippled Army soldiers situation that critics of the war like to paint, now is it?
And as I noted, multiple tours won't always mean multiple tours in direct combat roles.
Worry about the Army. Watch the trends. And take care of the soldiers. But pretending that you want to lose the Iraq War to save the Army is such an obviously false claim that my internal organs are at risk.
