Let’s put this in less “inside the beltway terms”: if the U.S. wants credible deterrence it requires permanent force commitment. You need to build trust and relationships. You need consistency. You need integration. Rotational forces do not provide that. It does not take academic research to prove it, just ask your Allies and partners. They will tell you. They want commitment and they want consistency. Permanent forces cost 💲but power projection in time of crisis costs more 💲 💲 and potentially defeat. #Army #NATO
Combat troops provided through rotational, six-to-nine-month modular-division deployments create significant risks in credible postures to deter a resurgent Russia, but competitive advantages can be improved early in crisis to avoid conflict. Read about it at https://lnkd.in/gausx3vr.
The OPTEMPO and the stresses of a deployment work-up and a rotational force work-up are damn near identical as well... this is a continuation of the GWOT deployment cycle by another name, "doing more with less" and continuing to burn the candle at both ends.
Did we learn nothing from Operation Gyroscope?
Great article Blair Wilcox !
Jared, completely agree!
Overall, good article. The split Command Posts creates unique challenges, but moving the entire Corps back to Europe would mitigate a lot of the Risks/Issues presented in the article. Secondly, V Corps has the least amount of personnel than any other Army Corps, and as it is pointed out in the article, maybe a little task over saturated. Lastly, PCS locations were approved in August 2022. The Corps staff fought against PCS locations initially prior to receiving guidance. There were PCS Soldiers on ground in late 2022. Things are trending positively I believe.