Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Readiness – I/L – Morale Key to Readiness

Morale key to readiness

The Washington Times 2 (9/23, “Military Morale for the Long Haul”, Questia)

President Bush was right to say that the war on terrorism will be long and hard. Our military planners are undoubtedly looking not only at the coming campaign in Iraq, but what will come after it, and how we will meet those challenges. One part of any military force's ability to fight is its morale. The morale of our front-line forces - the Special Operations troops, Air Force and Navy pilots, and the others who are first to go in harm's way - is very high. Morale is a key to fighting readiness, and the great majority of the people serving in these high-profile forces have a concomitantly high morale. But our sources tell us that all is not well with many of the others, including many who may have to go into combat in the near future.

Moral is key to sustainability and retention
MacLellan 10 (Kylie, Reuters, 28 Feb 2010, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61Q0HS.htm)KFC

A lack of support for British soldiers between deployments is damaging morale and risks undermining the army's ability to sustain its campaign in Afghanistan over the coming years, the head of the army said. In a memo to the Defence Ministry published in the Sunday Times newspaper, General Sir David Richards said that while improvements had been made to operational resources, the treatment of soldiers on their return home could have a long term impact on retention. "The deteriorating experience of soldiers and their families in the period between tours...is disaffecting attitudes, damaging morale and risks undermining our ability to sustain the campaign over the next years," he said. "We need our soldiers to be ready, mentally and physically, to endure repeated tours in Afghanistan in a harsh environment, with the real prospect of significant casualties each time." Rising British casualties in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan have brought criticism that Britain's armed forces are poorly equipped and underfunded. With an overhaul of defence strategy due after an election expected in May and severe public spending cuts needed to tackle a record budget deficit, many have warned of the risk of squeezing defence spending. Richards' gives a summary of the findings of his briefing team, who provide regular direct feedback on what the army is thinking and feeling, which had highlighted issues such as shortages of training equipment and poor housing. The team spent four months visiting 44 army units in Britain, Germany, Northern Ireland and Cyprus, collecting the views of more than 5,000 soldiers and their families, he said. "Investing in the deployed operation is only part of the requirement," said Richards. "Support to our service personnel between deployments and to their families' quality of life must become a fundamental tenet of sustaining the main effort."
Moral and retention have a direct correlation.
Klein 6 (Avi, May 2006, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0605.klein.html)KFC

In addition to direct surveys, statistics on retention—the number of soldiers eligible to reenlist who do so—can also provide hints about morale. Although the army has had to use sleight of hand to mask its faltering recruitment rates, reenlistment numbers have actually been better than expected. Indeed, since 2003, the Army has been revising its expected retention numbers upwards. In 2000, the Army projected that 20,000 soldiers completing their first term would reenlist, and 21,402 took up the challenge. In 2005, it expected 26,935 to re-up, and 27,818 did. The Marines—who invariably have the strongest combat morale—have also been successful, retaining 6,152 troops in 2005, 300 more than in 2000. "High retention is a reflection of high morale," says Army spokesman Sheldon Smith, "and, conversely, low retention would reflect low morale." (The big exception to the trend is the reserves, where retention numbers have been declining. But experts attribute that outlier not to political criticism of the effort but with other factors particular to the reserves: Namely, reservists have been required to stay in the theater and away from their homes and families for far longer than they expected to upon signing up. This is a reality that Republicans would have trouble blaming on anyone else.)

Readiness – I/L – Morale Key to Readiness

Military readiness dependent on morale

Spencer 00 (Jack, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security for the Institute for International Studies, The Facts About Military Readiness)

In recent months, the major foreign policy issue debated by the candidates in the 2000 presidential election campaign has been military readiness. Governor George W. Bush has accused the Clinton Administration of neglecting the military, referring to the status of the U.S. armed forces as “a military in decline.” Vice President Al Gore, on the other hand, countered that the military is the “strongest and the best” in the world. Readiness measures the ability of a military unit.to accomplish its assigned missions. Logistics, available spare parts, training, equipment, and morale all contribute to readiness.

Morale key to military readiness

Spencer 00 (Jack, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security for the Institute for International Studies, The Facts About Military Readiness)

According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed “were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up.” Because U.S. servicemen are the military’s greatest asset, a ready U.S. military requires bright, well-trained, and highly motivated active and reserve personnel. Unfortunately, due largely to low morale, the services are finding it difficult to recruit and retain servicemen. Conclusion. Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced b gets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America’s armed forces years away from top form. To deny that the United States military has readiness problems is to deny the men and women in uniform the respect they deserve. America’s military prowess can be restored, but policymakers must first admit there is a problem. Only then can the President and Congress work together to reestablish America’s top readiness capabilities.