NationStates Jolt Archive

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html

President George W. Bush told the Washington Post Tuesday that he will increase the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he wants his new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, to form a plan to increase ground forces.

This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

judging from this forum...its hard to tell whether or not we'll see a huge wave of anti military wack jobs posting here...or a bunch of "told-you-so" wack jobs.

Does he have a magic wand that sprouts soldiers or something?

This guy just doesn't stop, does he?

What in the hell... ?

Does he have a magic wand that sprouts soldiers or something?

Yeah, it's called the Individual Ready Reserve, something I am a member of until next July. Hopefully it takes the Army at least that long to process all of the paperwork needed before they even start looking at who they'll call up.

What I think it really shows is just how divorced from reality Bush is. He hears "we don't have enough troops to increase the forces in Iraq" and his solution is "bigger army! Make it happen!" as though soldiers are just plucked, fully formed and trained and equipped from trees. One of the biggest arguments against the draft a couple of years ago--aside from its great unpopularity--is that it has no immediate effect. Draftees still take anywhere from 6 months to a year to become anything resembling a fighting force, according to the statements I've read from generals and other military people, so even if we could recruit a million new soldiers, it still doesn't help in the short or even medium term.

I love it how people talk about expandin the military and the first thing people think of is the draft. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's called the Individual Ready Reserve, something I am a member of until next July. Hopefully it takes the Army at least that long to process all of the paperwork needed before they even start looking at who they'll call up.

They already called up some of you guys a year or two ago--the news media was full of stories about guys who were physically unable to be soldiers being told to report or they were going to jail. Somehow, I doubt that's going to be much help.

I love it how people talk about expandin the military and the first thing people think of is the draft. :rolleyes:

It's not the first thing, but it's a reasonable thing to think. Besides, what are you going to offer people to join the military that'll make them consider it?

It's not the first thing, but it's a reasonable thing to think. Besides, what are you going to offer people to join the military that'll make them consider it?

I guess you miss all the promotions on TV from the various branches?

See, the tax cuts had at least a few Voodoo Economists in support. How spending more on the military is going to help the budget deficit on the other hand is beyond even them.

Spiegel had an interesting two articles on yesterday about the changes they're trying to make to the training of on-the-ground officers to deal with insurgencies. Seems like a much better idea.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455165,00.html

I think Bush is just concerned that it's been shown that the military isn't strong enough to deal with being bled white in Iraq, and while the US is stuck there they don't have a stick to force anything else on anyone (eg Iran). I think he envisages a time when the US can fight simultaneous wars.

It's a pipe dream, of course. The US public won't want to pay for it.

They already called up some of you guys a year or two ago--the news media was full of stories about guys who were physically unable to be soldiers being told to report or they were going to jail. Somehow, I doubt that's going to be much help.

It would work as a short term fix. From what I hear they want to create two new Brigade Combat Teams. What they would do is grab people from current units to form a sort of cadre for these new units, and IRR guys would be spread through the entire Army to bulk it up while new basic trainees are trained up. It would take about a year, I think, to stand these new units up, although I don't really know.

Still, you'd need a lot of new privates to make this work, and that takes time.

I guess you miss all the promotions on TV from the various branches?

Not at all, but I've also noticed that the Army in particular has been repeatedly lowering its standards in order to get to their recruitment goals. People who would never have made the cut are getting in now, and that means that some people who are truly qualified are deciding they'd rather do anything else than join the Army. So if you want to expand the Army, you're going to have to sweeten the pot, make it more attractive--so how do you do that?

Not at all, but I've also noticed that the Army in particular has been repeatedly lowering its standards in order to get to their recruitment goals. People who would never have made the cut are getting in now, and that means that some people who are truly qualified are deciding they'd rather do anything else than join the Army. So if you want to expand the Army, you're going to have to sweeten the pot, make it more attractive--so how do you do that?

Well that's the Army for ya. Why do you think the Army is always the butt of most jokes? :D

Well that's the Army for ya. Why do you think the Army is always the butt of most jokes? :D

Jealousy? :p

Does he have a magic wand that sprouts soldiers or something?

I would delte that if i were you. other wise bush's secret police will come and drag you away.

I think he envisages a time when the US can fight simultaneous wars.

It's a pipe dream, of course. The US public won't want to pay for it.

Uhh, we are fighting two simultaneous wars. All our strategic capabilities are based around a two war system. Meaning that the military is designed to be able to fight two medium wars or one big and one small war.

Jealousy? :p

Nah! Just inter service rivalry :D

I would delte that if i were you. other wise bush's secret police will come and drag you away.

Oh brother. This is almost as bad as Clinton's black painted choppers. :rolleyes:

Uhh, we are fighting two simultaneous wars. All our strategic capabilities are based around a two war system. Meaning that the military is designed to be able to fight two medium wars or one big and one small war.
And we're getting our asses handed to us. What does that tell you?

And we're getting our asses handed to us. What does that tell you?

No were not. If we wanted to win in a week we could do it. The only problem is that a shit load of innocent civilians would die. If civilians would allow the military to win before putting them in a war we could either be a lot more successful or not have to fight wars.

And we're getting our asses handed to us. What does that tell you?

Its always tougher to fight a guerilla war than it is to fight a conventional war. Jesus Nazz get it through your head that we are fighting 2 guerilla wars.

So if you want to expand the Army, you're going to have to sweeten the pot, make it more attractive--so how do you do that?

I suppose the recruiter could swear on his mothers life that some mystical force will prevent you from dying. Either that or maybe they could increase the pay of soldiers. It totally sucks at the moment so maybe they could increase it to something at least reasonable.

Uhh, we are fighting two simultaneous wars. All our strategic capabilities are based around a two war system. Meaning that the military is designed to be able to fight two medium wars or one big and one small war.
And right now you have neither, you have two anti-insurgency operations. It doesn't matter whether you theoretically could win by nuking everyone. That's not a policy target of the government.

It matters that right now the US is no threat to Iran because too many military units have lost too much equipment in Iraq and that stuff isn't being replaced.

You don't actually believe that all the sweet-talking and going to the UN is due to a change in GWB's heart, do you?

Still, you'd need a lot of new privates to make this work, and that takes time.

It takes more than time, it takes people. The problem with increasing the size of the army is that you really only have two options: call up more reserves/guardsmen/ etc while enforcing retention (which has been going on for awhile now) or recruit new warm bodies. Every branch of the military is having trouble with recruitment. Hell, when I graduated from college I was offered an officer's commision and a signing bonus that was more than most soldiers make in a year, and it isn't because I have some rare skill set (ba with a double major in psychology and religious studies). Even with deals that sweet the military is having trouble finding new bodies.

That leaves two ways of finding new bodies: lower standards or start going into the selective service rolls. The military has standards for a reason. I can't imagine generals wanting to have to babysit a combat brigade staffed by people who failed psych exams, dropped out of highschool, have trouble with basic skills, or posess health problems.

The draft is an even worse idea. The current attitude of American youth is very different from the attitude of youth in the 50s or 60s. No one has been drafted in recent memory for your average 18 year old, those who have tell horror stories of Vietnam. There is no sense of duty or obligation that was associated with the draft through WWII and Korea. Worse, the general attitude of America's youth is very different. The 60s was a generation of hippies and peaceniks, angry at the very idea of war. Today we have a generation that doesn't shy away from violence and isn't afraid to assert their rights. The 18-24 crowd today are more likely to be fans of 50 Cent than Peter Paul and Mary. I can't imagine the kinds of fragging incedents that would happen if the draft was reinstated today.

This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.
What is it with Americans. You always think that more bombs and more soldiers are the answer.

The US has the biggest hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

And to think that most of you are Christians!

What is it with Americans. You always think that more bombs and more soldiers are the answer.

The US has the biggest hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

And to think that most of you are Christians!

I"m of the belief that if you show your opponets that you are ready to fight them, they have 2 options, take u up on it or to back down. Frankly, I like option 2 better than to option 1.

On top of that, it is a historic fact that we almost always seem to increase troop size while fighting a war.

And right now you have neither, you have two anti-insurgency operations.

Its more than that. The US military is the very best in the world at a very specific set of skills: killing people and destroying objects. That is what our soldiers are trained for, thats what the equipment is designed for, thats what our generals study. The problem is that Bush decided to throw our soldiers into peacekeeping positions for which they were not trained.

Whats worse is that once we were on the ground Bush didn't have the stomach for the kind of back room deals and dirty tricks you need to defeat an insurgency. The three biggest mistakes Bush made were dissolving the Iraqi army and intelligence network, not bringing local leaders and militias in to form local police forces, and not bothering to round up and execute high-level Baathist leaders as a warning to low level grunts.

The US has the biggest hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

And to think that most of you are Christians!

Weak grasp of Church history, huh?

It takes more than time, it takes people. The problem with increasing the size of the army is that you really only have two options: call up more reserves/guardsmen/ etc while enforcing retention (which has been going on for awhile now) or recruit new warm bodies. Every branch of the military is having trouble with recruitment. Hell, when I graduated from college I was offered an officer's commision and a signing bonus that was more than most soldiers make in a year, and it isn't because I have some rare skill set (ba with a double major in psychology and religious studies). Even with deals that sweet the military is having trouble finding new bodies.

Quite so. When I was getting ready to get out they offered me $20,000 tax free if I'd reenlisted while in Iraq (I got out 2 months after we got back from Iraq). I have Reserve and Guard recruiters emailing and calling me at least once a week offering me all sorts of money to come back in for a few years.

Anyway, I think the Army could possibly find enough people, but they certainly wouldn't be of the caliber the Army needs.

The Army is stretched enough as it is. Not long after I got out the Army selected a number of E-4s with time in grade and time in service and authorized them for promotion to E-5 (which is a Sergeant). Normally this selection is done in the unit by the unit's senior non-commissioned officers, so as to ensure that the soldier is capable of leading troops. This selection the Army did grabbed up a lot of guys (and girls) who have no business being in charge of anything. Quite often, if someone has time in grade and time in service and haven't been promoted there's a good reason why. The reason they did this was because a lot of promising young soldiers at the end of their first enlistment (who had just been promoted to E-5 or were promotable) decided to get out rather than reenlist. If things continue like this I fear for the Army.

The draft is an even worse idea. The current attitude of American youth is very different from the attitude of youth in the 50s or 60s. No one has been drafted in recent memory for your average 18 year old, those who have tell horror stories of Vietnam. There is no sense of duty or obligation that was associated with the draft through WWII and Korea. Worse, the general attitude of America's youth is very different. The 60s was a generation of hippies and peaceniks, angry at the very idea of war. Today we have a generation that doesn't shy away from violence and isn't afraid to assert their rights. The 18-24 crowd today are more likely to be fans of 50 Cent than Peter Paul and Mary. I can't imagine the kinds of fragging incedents that would happen if the draft was reinstated today.

Factor in that this war is already incredibly unpopular and you'd have an explosion if you tried to bring back the draft. At least during WWII, there wasn't much objection to the war, and that carried over into Korea and Vietnam for a while. It was only after Vietnam had been going on for a while that you started to get dissenters. But the war and Bush's conduct of it is between 20 and 30% right now. If Bush called for a draft now, the Republicans would start impeachment proceedings.

heh, theyd have to or completely lose all their seats in the next election. if bush keeps things going the way they are (and not just with the war), its going to be very hard for the republicans to get someone in for president in 08

Anyway, I think the Army could possibly find enough people, but they certainly wouldn't be of the caliber the Army needs.

<snip>

If things continue like this I fear for the Army.

I definately agree, but I think the military will bounce back.

It seems like the Army in particular has been struggling with the shift in responsibilites and expectations. Too many generals are still stuck in an infantry-and-tanks mentality and haven't quite figured out how to run an organization that is generally going to be asked to do smaller scale operations with less long-term commitment. Thats what Iraq should have been. The problem is that we've been training our troops to be a strike force and then deploying them as an occupation force.

Factor in that this war is already incredibly unpopular and you'd have an explosion if you tried to bring back the draft. At least during WWII, there wasn't much objection to the war, and that carried over into Korea and Vietnam for a while. It was only after Vietnam had been going on for a while that you started to get dissenters. But the war and Bush's conduct of it is between 20 and 30% right now. If Bush called for a draft now, the Republicans would start impeachment proceedings.

I'm not sure they would. The Democrats would, which would be good, they need to be reminded how to play politics. I'm not sure the Republicans are ready to break with Bush quite yet. I wish they were, I really want my party back, but I think that the neo/theocon wing isn't quite dead yet.

And right now you have neither, you have two anti-insurgency operations. It doesn't matter whether you theoretically could win by nuking everyone. That's not a policy target of the government.
Who said nuking? If we were allowed to go on offensives such as fallujah in every major city the insurgency would die. Insurgencies happen b/c the perceived threat is worse than war. If we make war worse then the insurgency dies.

It matters that right now the US is no threat to Iran because too many military units have lost too much equipment in Iraq and that stuff isn't being replaced.

You don't actually believe that all the sweet-talking and going to the UN is due to a change in GWB's heart, do you?

I'm not really talking about Iran. We are already fighting two wars without an iran conflict. Not that a war against Iran would gain us anything.

Who said nuking? If we were allowed to go on offensives such as fallujah in every major city the insurgency would die. Insurgencies happen b/c the perceived threat is worse than war. If we make war worse then the insurgency dies.
Meh, it seems like people are still getting killed in Fallujah (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/04/content_500186.htm). Either way, nuking or conventionally bombing makes no difference. It's not a policy goal, and the military is there to enforce policy goals.

I'm not really talking about Iran. We are already fighting two wars without an iran conflict. Not that a war against Iran would gain us anything.
Afghanistan hardly even counts, given the lack of effort on the part of the US. NATO's losing there, even though we really can't afford it.

The thing is that the US is so unpopular around the world that the only concrete diplomatic tool they have is the military threat. Even the promise of economic help is getting pointless with Russia, China and India handing out money much more freely.

If the military ends up tied up, that diplomatic tool goes bye-bye, and Bush doesn't like the idea of people like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il doing whatever they like.

About time.

Who said nuking? If we were allowed to go on offensives such as fallujah in every major city the insurgency would die. Insurgencies happen b/c the perceived threat is worse than war. If we make war worse then the insurgency dies.

History would disagree. I don't think many people could make an honest argument that the US didn't make war as terrible as possible in Vietnam. The insurgency there continued unabated until we fled from Saigon. The same can be said of the insurgency that Russia faced when they invaded Afghanistan. The Russians were not known for play with kit gloves, and despite their brutality the insurgency continued. The current Chechen conflict is another example of an insurgency surviving despite the fact that the consequences are terrible. The French resistance against the Nazis, the war in the Basque region of Spain, the centuries of conflict in Ireland. Insurgencies have little to do with the factors you describe in the way you describe them.

Insurgencies happen because a significant group of people decided that any outcome is better than submission. Any horror can be faced if it means even the barest chance of victory, and even a terrible and inevitable death is preferable to giving up. It is not an accident that insurgencies tend to have either a very strong secular or religious ideal tied into them. In Iraq it is not a battle against the US, it is a holy war against the West and the enemies of Islam. Making war bad for them is going to do little more than toughen their resolve, these are people who have already chosen walking death over failure.

Meh, it seems like people are still getting killed in Fallujah (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/04/content_500186.htm). Either way, nuking or conventionally bombing makes no difference. It's not a policy goal, and the military is there to enforce policy goals.

Gee, and it's not even like the insurgents could come in from outside the city. You sure got me stumped. I didn't say bombing either. What do you think the policy goals are?

Afghanistan hardly even counts, given the lack of effort on the part of the US. NATO's losing there, even though we really can't afford it.
How is the U.S. not putting in an effort in Afghanistan? My dad is currently in Afghanistan and most of the people there are pro-U.S.

The thing is that the US is so unpopular around the world that the only concrete diplomatic tool they have is the military threat. Even the promise of economic help is getting pointless with Russia, China and India handing out money much more freely.
Which is why we are going through the U.N. to place sanctions against aid towards some countries. There is always another way.

If the military ends up tied up, that diplomatic tool goes bye-bye, and Bush doesn't like the idea of people like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il doing whatever they like.

They know that if they do something really stupid and go to war that we will drop everything and will stop them. No question there.

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

I agree completely.

But, the definately do need a comprehensive plan that will take advantage of a more stable situation.

I am encouraged that Bush seems to be taking his time and asking lots of questions.

History would disagree. I don't think many people could make an honest argument that the US didn't make war as terrible as possible in Vietnam. The insurgency there continued unabated until we fled from Saigon. The same can be said of the insurgency that Russia faced when they invaded Afghanistan. The Russians were not known for play with kit gloves, and despite their brutality the insurgency continued. The current Chechen conflict is another example of an insurgency surviving despite the fact that the consequences are terrible. The French resistance against the Nazis, the war in the Basque region of Spain, the centuries of conflict in Ireland. Insurgencies have little to do with the factors you describe in the way you describe them.

Insurgencies happen because a significant group of people decided that any outcome is better than submission. Any horror can be faced if it means even the barest chance of victory, and even a terrible and inevitable death is preferable to giving up. It is not an accident that insurgencies tend to have either a very strong secular or religious ideal tied into them. In Iraq it is not a battle against the US, it is a holy war against the West and the enemies of Islam. Making war bad for them is going to do little more than toughen their resolve, these are people who have already chosen walking death over failure.

In Vietnam, we were also choosy with our targets. The main difference was that the people were so stuffed with propaganda that they actually did think that democracy would be worse than what they were going through. In afghanistan, the people were inspired by allah and actually wanted to die so war would actually be the best thing that they could do. However the groups that we face in iraq are much less radical enemy as a whole. There is only a fringe group that fights for religious reasons. That group is called Al-Qaeda. Every other group inside Iraq is known to kill know Al-Qaeda operatives. The majority of the Sunni insurgency wants to restore it's place in iraq. Negotiations can let them realize that putting down their weapons can allow us to make that happen for them. The Shiia militias want to keep the Sunnis down and get us out. We need to start to go after them more aggressively. Let them know that their current power is what they are going to get and nothing more. Mabye a compromise of an agreement with sunnis and we leave.

What do you think the policy goals are?
Leave behind a stable and democratic Iraq. They've said so often enough.

As for the insurgents, they are recruited from anywhere, including inside the city.

How is the U.S. not putting in an effort in Afghanistan? My dad is currently in Afghanistan and most of the people there are pro-U.S.
It's just not enough. If the US wasn't stuck in Iraq, the Taliban could be virtually gone by now, and the US could make Musharraf do something about Quetta.

Which is why we are going through the U.N. to place sanctions against aid towards some countries. There is always another way.
Who cares about aid? Iran for example has a lot of oil and natural gas. India and China are after it, and they don't give a shit about nuclear programs or Isael.

They know that if they do something really stupid and go to war that we will drop everything and will stop them. No question there.
Yeah, but that's not what Bush wants. He wants Iran to stop researching nuclear technology, and he wants them to drop their rhetoric and join the proper discourse between civilised nations.

I"m of the belief that if you show your opponets that you are ready to fight them, they have 2 options, take u up on it or to back down. Frankly, I like option 2 better than to option 1.
The US already has overwhelming military might. What will further increases do to help?

On top of that, it is a historic fact that we almost always seem to increase troop size while fighting a war.
War against terrorists is very different from WWII.

Weak grasp of Church history, huh?
I think that Christians should submit to the will of God and at least try to live by the example of Christ, rather than emulate corrupt men of the past.

I"m of the belief that if you show your opponets that you are ready to fight them, they have 2 options, take u up on it or to back down. Frankly, I like option 2 better than to option 1.
The US already has overwhelming military might. What will further increases do to help?

On top of that, it is a historic fact that we almost always seem to increase troop size while fighting a war.
War against terrorists is very different from WWII.

Weak grasp of Church history, huh?
I think that Christians should submit to the will of God and at least try to live by the example of Christ, rather than emulate corrupt men of the past.

The US already has overwhelming military might. What will further increases do to help?

We are fighting a war on many fronts and in many places around the earth. Do you think that Iraq and Afghanistan are our only hotspots?

War against terrorists is very different from WWII.

I agree with you 100% but WWII was not the only case where our numbers expanded during a war.

What is it with Americans. You always think that more bombs and more soldiers are the answer.

The US has the biggest hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

And to think that most of you are Christians!

What is it with you Irish? Change sides while in America's army to join the Mexicans, get beat and hold a grudge for over a hundred years... :p

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

Um... How is he going to do that? He can only make the economy so bad to create his underclass of economically desperate young men who have no other hope for progress in life than to join the military. Without a draft how much bigger can he make it?

Can someone please explain why some people seem to think that the US can't recruit more soldiers?

Right now, the US has something like 550,000 troops on a population of 300 million. Back in the 80s, we maintained a 750,000 troop strength, and had over a million during the 1991 Gulf War.

All were volunteer forces.

No, it will not be instanteous. No, it won't be cheap. But all this does is actually PUT the war on terror into the budget (which Hillary Clinton and various other Dems approve of) and actually allow the Pentagon to staff up for a non-peacetime recruitment level.

Um... How is he going to do that? He can only make the economy so bad to create his underclass of economically desperate young men who have no other hope for progress in life than to join the military. Without a draft how much bigger can he make it?

That's up to the Defense Department.

What is it with you Irish? Change sides while in America's army to join the Mexicans, get beat and hold a grudge for over a hundred years... :p

That was either too little drink, or too much... I forget. Whatever it was, it just wasn't the right amount. :)

killing more people is not the answer to international terrorism.

killing more people is not the answer to international terrorism.

I wholly disagree. It just has to be the right people. Like those certain Imams that teach it is a good thing to suicide bomb, or that anyone who is not Islamic is the infidel and must die or convert.

Until this philosophy is killed, people will continue to be killed.

Y'know back in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D there were monsters that were only vulnerable to magic weapons - like Gargoyles, I think, who needed to be hit with +1 or better weapons to hurt them. In my experience there was always some dumb fighter dude with a plain unmagical sword who would hack away at these critters with no result. When urged to pull back and retreat by the rest of the party so that they could reconsider their tactics these dumb fighters would always just say 'they can't keep absorbing this damage forever' and keep hacking. That's Bush, that is.

Its always tougher to fight a guerilla war than it is to fight a conventional war. Jesus Nazz get it through your head that we are fighting 2 guerilla wars.
You mean gorilla wars with Bush as the head chimp. :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

We certainly don't spend enough. Bigger military it is.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/WorldMilitarySpending.jpg

We certainly don't spend enough. Bigger military it is.

Yeah, but you Americanos are also responsible for the defense of Iceland, and so that must account for what? 80%? 90%? of that spending.

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

That's a bit sketchy on the details.
But yes, it should have. The whole "peace dividend" drawdown was a huge assed mistake, and I've been saying that for ages (well before Bush was even elected). Shortly before 9/11, Rummy even admited we didn't have the forces to carry out the two war strategy (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200108/18/eng20010818_77616.html).

Rumsfeld said that in recent years the Pentagon has been " living a lie" because it lacks the forces to carry out the two-war requirement but would not admit it.

Yeah, but you Americanos are also responsible for the defense of Iceland, and so that must account for what? 80%? 90%? of that spending.

Defending Reykjavik from Islamic Fascists has always been at the top of our agenda. We like your hotsprings and tall Scandinavian women.:p

We certainly don't spend enough. Bigger military it is.

With the kinds of wars we've mostly been engaging in since the end of the Cold War, we don't really need to raise spending, but adjust priorities. We have far too many Cold War toys, and not enough post-Cold War people.

That's a bit sketchy on the details.
But yes, it should have. The whole "peace dividend" drawdown was a huge assed mistake, and I've been saying that for ages (well before Bush was even elected). Shortly before 9/11, Rummy even admited we didn't have the forces to carry out the two war strategy (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200108/18/eng20010818_77616.html).

I know. Some in the military did not appreciate the drawdown either.

We have far too many Cold War toys, and not enough post-Cold War people.

The disturbing thing, if my maths is correct, is that people born after the end of the Cold War are going to be the ones in the front line from now on. So much for a better world for our kids.

Defending Reykjavik from Islamic Fascists has always been at the top of our agenda. We like your hotsprings and tall Scandinavian women.:p

Indeed! Blondes and Rúllupylsa for everyone! :)

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.
Troll much lately..?

Troll much lately..?

:confused: How the hell is this trolling when it is a news report?

:confused: How the hell is this trolling when it is a news report?Yea, first of all "PittsBurgh", like that is real! And like there was a newspaper in that imaginary place. You have to try harder!

Yea, first of all "PittsBurgh", like that is real! And like there was a newspaper in that imaginary place. You have to try harder!

So I guess you do not know US Geography. Either that or you are from Cleveland.

I live near the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and in reality, this comes from a tv station which picked it up off the news wire. I can post the Washington Post article if you like.

So I guess you do not know US Geography. Either that or you are from Cleveland.

I live near the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and in reality, this comes from a tv station which picked it up off the news wire. I can post the Washington Post article if you like.
And I am 68 year old!
Post whatever you like, dear.

And I am 68 year old!
Post whatever you like, dear.

I'm not your dear. I do take exception to being called a troll when I am not trolling at all. The only troll here is you right now so move along.

Does he have a magic wand that sprouts soldiers or something?
Yes, it's called the "Draft Board." :p

I'm not your dear. I do take exception to being called a troll when I am not trolling at all. The only troll here is you right now so move along.What if I tag along and you move along..? I'm quiet, honest.

I know. Some in the military did not appreciate the drawdown either.

Indeed.

The disturbing thing, if my maths is correct, is that people born after the end of the Cold War are going to be the ones in the front line from now on.

Not quite yet - the oldest post-Cold War babies are not quite of military age. But, soon enough, and naturally, it will be the case.

So much for a better world for our kids.

It's the nature of the beast. Anyone who thought the post-Cold War world would be all peace, love, joy, and everybody getting along swimmingly, was a fool and history shows it.

I'm not your dear. I do take exception to being called a troll when I am not trolling at all. The only troll here is you right now so move along.

Psst! Put him on your ignore list already.

Yes, it's called the "Draft Board." :p

Ain't gonna happen. Period.

Yeah, it's called the Individual Ready Reserve, something I am a member of until next July. Hopefully it takes the Army at least that long to process all of the paperwork needed before they even start looking at who they'll call up.

I have to say it: he he he The army tried to call me back up like three years after I got out. I told them to fuck off. They told me they could have me arrested. I told them to fuck off. They sent me some paperwork demanding that I report to my MEPS station (in New Orleans)

at whcih point I sent them a copy of my DD 214 whcih clearly showed I had served 10 years on active duty and told them to fuck off again. Haven't heard from them since.

Hope they don't get you in Bush's newest loony scheme.

I have to say it: he he he The army tried to call me back up like three years after I got out. I told them to fuck off. They told me they could have me arrested. I told them to fuck off. They sent me some paperwork demanding that I report to my MEPS station (in New Orleans)

at whcih point I sent them a copy of my DD 214 whcih clearly showed I had served 10 years on active duty and told them to fuck off again. Haven't heard from them since.

Hope they don't get you in Bush's newest loony scheme.

I don't know what's worse--that they tried to call you back in the first place, or that they had their shit so screwed up that they didn't know you were out.

I know. Some in the military did not appreciate the drawdown either.

like me. Which is why I got out after Kosovo. We were already stretching too thin with Bosnia and it was only going to get worse. If my country had recogniced what we were saying as reality this whole mess would have been way different.

If bush would actually bulk up the infantry, instead of making yet more pencil pushers and bean eaters, I might think this was a smart idea. But we'kk end up with a 35k increase, with like 2k infantry. I do not say "combat arms" cause we don't need combat arms. we need infantry.

Uhh, we are fighting two simultaneous wars. All our strategic capabilities are based around a two war system. Meaning that the military is designed to be able to fight two medium wars or one big and one small war.
no, no they are not. That ended several years ago during the drawdown. By the time 9/11 rolled around it was generally accepted that we couldn't do either of those goals. BEsides, have you EVER heard of military capabilities ever being what congress claims them to be when funding?

I love how people are soooo very angry at the President for doing his job. As threats increase so does our military strength. It is fairly logical.

I love how people are soooo very angry at the President for doing his job. As threats increase so does our military strength. It is fairly logical.

You mean already existent threats that have not become any larger and situations of our own creation that have gotten out of control because they were stupid in the first place.

I love how people are soooo very angry at the President for doing his job. As threats increase so does our military strength. It is fairly logical.

If he'd do his job competently, we wouldn't get angry.

You mean already existent threats that have not become any larger and situations of our own creation that have gotten out of control because they were stupid in the first place.

I would mean that if I was in the 1/5 far left of the country who wants to pull out of Iraq and thinks we are headed for defeat. Seriously, even if your hypothosis was correct, it still would not change the need for more soldiers in the military. Irrelevant.

If he'd do his job competently, we wouldn't get angry.

SO do you have a competent and rational reason why the US military should not be expanded? After all, isnt it the far left who constantly assumes that we are "bogged down" or "tied up" in Iraq...leaving us open to threats from other countries? A larger military fixes that.

Why do we need MORE troops? Iraq is basically a lost cause at this point but if people are so gung ho about sending more troops to the quagmire, why can they just use the troops twiddling their thumbs in Germany, Italy, and Japan?

Why do we need MORE troops? Iraq is basically a lost cause at this point but if people are so gung ho about sending more troops to the quagmire, why can they just use the troops twiddling their thumbs in Germany, Italy, and Japan?

Because those are strategic outposts that we have for other threats. Don't get me wrong, many should and will be sent from those bases, but more will be needed to replace those people, and to increase the size of the marine corps. in Iraq. As far as Iraq being a lost cause I am glad that the majority of Americans has always disagreed with you.

I have to say it: he he he The army tried to call me back up like three years after I got out. I told them to fuck off. They told me they could have me arrested. I told them to fuck off. They sent me some paperwork demanding that I report to my MEPS station (in New Orleans)

at whcih point I sent them a copy of my DD 214 whcih clearly showed I had served 10 years on active duty and told them to fuck off again. Haven't heard from them since.

Hope they don't get you in Bush's newest loony scheme.

He'd be 2 for 2 if I did. I was in OIF1 with the 3d ACR from '03 till '04. I didn't really care for it. I'll be living in France from February until June, so hopefully they'll just leave me the hell alone.

If bush would actually bulk up the infantry, instead of making yet more pencil pushers and bean eaters, I might think this was a smart idea. But we'kk end up with a 35k increase, with like 2k infantry. I do not say "combat arms" cause we don't need combat arms. we need infantry.

Quoted for truth. All of this "force multiplier" shit doesn't do anything in a counter insurgency if you don't have boots on the ground. At the moment the Army can kill the hell out of a bunch of people, armor is really good at that, but we don't have enough 11 bang bangs to do the sort of work needed in Iraq. I certainly wouldn't cry if they disbanded a few PSBs to free up end strength for a few more infantry battalions.

The truth is spoken.

The truth is spoken.

I'm not saying that I particularly agree with this idea to increase end strength. What I'm saying is the Army has far too much ash and trash and needs more combat arms (infantry especially). The Army is extremely top heavy, and a lot of headquarters and other such things could be done away with, and more infantry battalions created with the end strength that would be freed up.

SO do you have a competent and rational reason why the US military should not be expanded? After all, isnt it the far left who constantly assumes that we are "bogged down" or "tied up" in Iraq...leaving us open to threats from other countries? A larger military fixes that.

Have I said we don't need a larger military? All I've talked about on this thread is the sense that Idiot Bush seems to think he can wave a magic wand and we'll have a larger army.

I'm not saying that I particularly agree with this idea to increase end strength. What I'm saying is the Army has far too much ash and trash and needs more combat arms (infantry especially). The Army is extremely top heavy, and a lot of headquarters and other such things could be done away with, and more infantry battalions created with the end strength that would be freed up.

Agreed once again. That may very well be the plan that will be announced. We don't know yet. Its all speculation.

Have I said we don't need a larger military? All I've talked about on this thread is the sense that Idiot Bush seems to think he can wave a magic wand and we'll have a larger army.

Can you point to anything that PRESIDENT Bush has said that makes you believe that he thinks that? If you can't stop that sort of slander.

Because those are strategic outposts that we have for other threats. Don't get me wrong, many should and will be sent from those bases, but more will be needed to replace those people, and to increase the size of the marine corps. in Iraq. As far as Iraq being a lost cause I am glad that the majority of Americans has always disagreed with you.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of Americans think Iraq is a lost cause. As I noted in another thread, only 11% favor sending in more troops. You were saying?

Can you point to anything that PRESIDENT Bush has said that makes you believe that he thinks that? If you can't stop that sort of slander.

Opening post.

Opening post.

That is an opinion poll about what other people think. Irrelevant.

I asked you to produce any quote from the President where he seems to think he can increase the size of the military with a flick of a magic wand...you can not dodge my question like that. Where is your quote?

Because those are strategic outposts that we have for other threats. Don't get me wrong, many should and will be sent from those bases, but more will be needed to replace those people, and to increase the size of the marine corps. in Iraq. As far as Iraq being a lost cause I am glad that the majority of Americans has always disagreed with you.

First of all the majority of Americans are against the Iraq war, why else do you think many republicans were tossed out? Second of all Germany and Italy are the middle of Europe, they hardly need defending! They have been peaceful nations for damn near sixty years now and I think its long overdue to make them fully responsible for their own defense. I can maybe see Japan needing troops but again I think they should take responsibility for their own national defense.

Iraq is nothing more than a bottomless pit. Our ignorant president manipulated the masses into believing that attacking a stable secular state was essential for our national security! No WMDs were found, no links to terrorists were unearthed! We knocked over a country that posed no threat to us and now we are reaping the harvest of Islamic Fundamentalism that was planted by our own reckless aggression! Anyone who claims that invading Iraq was a good idea is seriously deluded. I can only hope that we can find a solution that minimizes American deaths and restores some semblance of order to the region. Sadly I dont think the latter can be accomplished.

The bases in Germany and Italy are not there to defend Germany and Italy.

For one, they serve as safe bases of operation to support US and NATO forces in Kosovo...

First of all the majority of Americans are against the Iraq war, why else do you think many republicans were tossed out? .

I will not respond to your canned Michael Moore rant because it was not relevant but as far as what I kept goes....I never claimed that most people support the Iraq war. I only said that it is about 1/5 of the country that thinks we are going to lose, and it is only about 1/5 who want us to leave Iraq right away. Quit drinking the kool aid.

The bases in Germany and Italy are not there to defend Germany and Italy.

For one, they serve as safe bases of operation to support US and NATO forces in Kosovo...

Its not worth trying to use facts with that sort of person. They are wrapped up in an ideology.

According to a report that just crossed my desktop, President Bush is going to increase the size of the US Military to battle the war on terror.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/10569525/detail.html



This is a great idea and it should have been done years ago.

Not really. How does increasing military forces help you against terrorism? Surely he should fund the Anti-terrorist Unit or the Police, considering they stop the terrorists in America. Unless ofcourse hes referring to Iraq, in which case sending more troops won't stop anything.

That is an opinion poll about what other people think. Irrelevant.

I asked you to produce any quote from the President where he seems to think he can increase the size of the military with a flick of a magic wand...you can not dodge my question like that. Where is your quote?
Actually, until this post, you have asked for no such thing. My statement was a description of Bush's frame of mind as I saw it, and I never said otherwise. Don't like it? Can't help you.

Not really. How does increasing military forces help you against terrorism? Surely he should fund the Anti-terrorist Unit or the Police, considering they stop the terrorists in America. Unless ofcourse hes referring to Iraq, in which case sending more troops won't stop anything.

I think this is a universal strategy but as far as Iraq goes think of it this way....if only 1% of them are fighting us that is 240,000 people, and we are outnumbered. The more soldiers we put in the more ability we will have to kill bad people.

The bases in Germany and Italy are not there to defend Germany and Italy.

For one, they serve as safe bases of operation to support US and NATO forces in Kosovo...

So? NATO is obsolete and should have died with the cold war. If Kosovo honestly needs the troops then it should be done by E.U and such. Kosovo is not an american concern,

Actually, until this post, you have asked for no such thing. My statement was a description of Bush's frame of mind as I saw it, and I never said otherwise. Don't like it? Can't help you.
you said:

"All I've talked about on this thread is the sense that Idiot Bush seems to think he can wave a magic wand and we'll have a larger army."

I asked you to produce any quote "from PRESIDENT Bush" that backs up your claim. You have none.

So? NATO is obsolete and should have died with the cold war. If Kosovo honestly needs the troops then it should be done by E.U and such. Kosovo is not an american concern,

Who the hell are you to decide what is or isn't an American concern?

you said:

"All I've talked about on this thread is the sense that Idiot Bush seems to think he can wave a magic wand and we'll have a larger army."

I asked you to produce any quote "from PRESIDENT Bush" that backs up your claim. You have none.Never claimed otherwise--or do you have an alternate definition for the word "sense?"

President George W. Bush told the Washington Post Tuesday that he will increase the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he wants his new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, to form a plan to increase ground forces.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do I respond to that? As a Soldier in the U.S. Army, I say this is a bad thing. Reason? That means they'll bring back the draft and leave us guys out of combat! .. or we'll be on the forefront of a NEW war while you drafted kiddies continue the "War on Terrorism". :sniper:

I think this is a universal strategy but as far as Iraq goes think of it this way....if only 1% of them are fighting us that is 240,000 people, and we are outnumbered. The more soldiers we put in the more ability we will have to kill bad people.

Not really. You put in more soldiers, you just give freedom fighters more targets. Theres more to war strategy than numbers. How do you think the freedom fighters were able to hold out so long?

Agreed once again. That may very well be the plan that will be announced. We don't know yet. Its all speculation.

you know I love you right? So you're not gonna get insulted when I tell you this is bullshit, right? It'll be mostly REMFS again.

We're making Divisions with 4 brigades. The division handling said brigades will be able to handle any of the several brigades in the army. So we will need more divisions to their way of thinking, not more brigades, or battalions making brigades. Count on it. We'll add the 7th Infantry Division and 5th Infantry Division staffs. Maybe the 2nd AD staff. Then they will bulk up any brigades that are not independant brigades in truth already (Two manuever battalions and an armored squadron, an artillery battalion, and a support battalion, if it's heavy an engineer batalion and I believe a medic battalion.
They'll find ways to build up brigades to that, and everybody else can go screw themselves, and none of it will actually increase the actual grunt count. Welcome to the real world of the army.

Oh. If we're lucky the 82nd Airborne will go away to become the 82 airborne division (Airborne Airmobile Mountain) The 101 and 10th Mountain should do the same I think. Then they can rotate the two division staffs when they wear out.
with a brigade of each kind in there. In general these days, those guys only need one brigade for an operation. So we ought to build one division tasked to do all three. Keep the 75th as is. SOCCOM will get bigger staff. And prolly they will add a civil affairs brigade.

THere you have it. 40,000 troops and no new grunts.

Never claimed otherwise--or do you have an alternate definition for the word "sense?"

SO where is that quote that backs up your claim?

President George W. Bush told the Washington Post Tuesday that he will increase the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he wants his new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, to form a plan to increase ground forces.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do I respond to that? As a Soldier in the U.S. Army, I say this is a bad thing. Reason? That means they'll bring back the draft and leave us guys out of combat! .. or we'll be on the forefront of a NEW war while you drafted kiddies continue the "War on Terrorism". :sniper:

hmmmm well being that the only proposal to initiate a draft during the past 30 years was in 2004 and went down 400 somthing to 2 in the House....I would not let my heart be troubled if I was you.

SO where is that quote that backs up your claim?

Dude, you have serious reading comprehension problems.

Not really. You put in more soldiers, you just give freedom fighters more targets. Theres more to war strategy than numbers. How do you think the freedom fighters were able to hold out so long?

Funny how those "freedom fighters" were blowing people up who were trying to vote. (hello)?

you know I love you right? So you're not gonna get insulted when I tell you this is bullshit, right? It'll be mostly REMFS again.

We're making Divisions with 4 brigades. The division handling said brigades will be able to handle any of the several brigades in the army. So we will need more divisions to their way of thinking, not more brigades, or battalions making brigades. Count on it. We'll add the 7th Infantry Division and 5th Infantry Division staffs. Maybe the 2nd AD staff. Then they will bulk up any brigades that are not independant brigades in truth already (Two manuever battalions and an armored squadron, an artillery battalion, and a support battalion, if it's heavy an engineer batalion and I believe a medic battalion.
They'll find ways to build up brigades to that, and everybody else can go screw themselves, and none of it will actually increase the actual grunt count. Welcome to the real world of the army.

Oh. If we're lucky the 82nd Airborne will go away to become the 82 airborne division (Airborne Airmobile Mountain) The 101 and 10th Mountain should do the same I think. Then they can rotate the two division staffs when they wear out.
with a brigade of each kind in there. In general these days, those guys only need one brigade for an operation. So we ought to build one division tasked to do all three. Keep the 75th as is. SOCCOM will get bigger staff. And prolly they will add a civil affairs brigade.

THere you have it. 40,000 troops and no new grunts.

Interesting. It will be interesting to see if that is what is announced next year. WE will see.

Dude, you have serious reading comprehension problems.


Nope. I can read your attempts to dodge. You made a baseless claim and now you cannot back it up. Their is no quote where the President claims to be able to increase the size of the military easily.

Funny how those "freedom fighters" were blowing people up who were trying to vote. (hello)?

......okay, that has nothing to do with what I just said.

Who the hell are you to decide what is or isn't an American concern?

And who the hell are you to decide that its our nations duty to spend its money and blood policing the rest of the world?

......okay, that has nothing to do with what I just said.

I thought you were talking about the terrorists in Iraq.

And who the hell are you to decide that its our nations duty to spend its money and blood policing the rest of the world?


I thought the Democrat Senate decided that in 02'.

Funny how those "freedom fighters" were blowing people up who were trying to vote. (hello)?

If the majority of Iraqs wanted a stable government, then there would be no sectarian violence and the country would not be sliding towards civil war. You cant run a government if the majority of citizens want to blow each up over petty religous and ethnic differences. Wake up and see reality, the war in Iraq was unjustified and our invasion has created civil war.

I thought the Democrat Senate decided that in 02'.


The democrats are no better than the republicans!!!! They only went along with it in a attempt to appear patriotic to the voters. Now that the shit has hit the fan in Iraq and the people are against it, they have switched to opposition.

that's not true at all. Many Democrats were against the war and voiced their opinions back when W decided to invade inthe first place. They also voted for funding because they agree taht the president is the commander in chief and that we have to back up our commander in chief and his decisions. I'd have done exactly the same, and I would have fought his crazyness as hard as I could. WHich many of them did.

If the majority of Iraqs wanted a stable government, then there would be no sectarian violence and the country would not be sliding towards civil war. You cant run a government if the majority of citizens want to blow each up over petty religous and ethnic differences. Wake up and see reality, the war in Iraq was unjustified and our invasion has created civil war.

Well, our invasion was completely justified because Iraq was the only nation on Earth violating a ceasefire with the USA and the Senate authorized the use of force. Now, can you provide any source that a "majority" of Iraqis do not want a stable government (they voted didnt they?)? Can you show me any source that proves that a "majority" of Iraqis ( thats 12 million people) want to "blow each (other) up?

The democrats are no better than the republicans!!!! They only went along with it in a attempt to appear patriotic to the voters. Now that the shit has hit the fan in Iraq and the people are against it, they have switched to opposition.

Just making sure.

that's not true at all. Many Democrats were against the war and voiced their opinions back when W decided to invade inthe first place. They also voted for funding because they agree taht the president is the commander in chief and that we have to back up our commander in chief and his decisions. I'd have done exactly the same, and I would have fought his crazyness as hard as I could. WHich many of them did.

Most Democrats voted to authorize the use of force.
Most Democrats voted for a bill that made "regime change" offical US policy for Iraq.

The thing I don't like about this is the talk about doing it because of the "War on Terrorism".

Didn't we learn that big invasions don't really bother "Terrorism" too much? He oughta improve the military intelligence arm and maybe increase the size and readiness of the Special Forces. And teach someone Arabic, for Christ's sakes!

I don't know enough about the Army to know whether it's got enough grunts. I would argue that the US Government doesn't have the extra money for it, if they need extra grunts, they should maybe buy a few less billion dollar bombers or just eliminate all the special deals they made with the big weapons manufacturers.

What they could use is better-trained grunts.

Civilised Warriors: The US Army Learns from its Mistakes in Iraq (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455165,00.html)

Interview with General David Petraeus: "We Have to Raise our Sights Beyond the Range of an M-16" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199,00.html)

The thing I don't like about this is the talk about doing it because of the "War on Terrorism".

Didn't we learn that big invasions don't really bother "Terrorism" too much? He oughta improve the military intelligence arm and maybe increase the size and readiness of the Special Forces. And teach someone Arabic, for Christ's sakes!

I don't know enough about the Army to know whether it's got enough grunts. I would argue that the US Government doesn't have the extra money for it, if they need extra grunts, they should maybe buy a few less billion dollar bombers or just eliminate all the special deals they made with the big weapons manufacturers.

What they could use is better-trained grunts.

Civilised Warriors: The US Army Learns from its Mistakes in Iraq (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455165,00.html)

Interview with General David Petraeus: "We Have to Raise our Sights Beyond the Range of an M-16" (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,455199,00.html)

I agree with that to a degree.

Well, our invasion was completely justified because Iraq was the only nation on Earth violating a ceasefire with the USA and the Senate authorized the use of force. Now, can you provide any source that a "majority" of Iraqis do not want a stable government (they voted didnt they?)? Can you show me any source that proves that a "majority" of Iraqis ( thats 12 million people) want to "blow each (other) up?

Just because the senate authorizes it doesnt mean its right. It just means that senators wanted to bolster their own popularity by supporting the president and engaging what they thought would be a quick war.

A source? The very fact that sectarian violence is so pervasive and the fact that the country can barely hold itself to together is source enough. If the Iraqi people didnt support these warring factions then the current situation wouldnt exist. The high level of violence that occurs daily would be impossible without civilian support for various sides.

I agree with that to a degree.
Have a look at the articles, they're really quite good.

Most Democrats voted to authorize the use of force.
Most Democrats voted for a bill that made "regime change" offical US policy for Iraq.

Demorcarats voted to authoriaze use of force as part of a process of showing Hussein that we were able and wiling to do so, IN THE PRROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS. Bush lept about ten levels of negotiations. Hell even Colin Powell didn't want to go so soon and got screwed over by the admiinistration.
Regime change bill was the same thing. A vote to show him that we were willing and able doesn't mean they believed Bush should simply pack our bags and go without a good deal more work. Which they said at the time. So try and not show the one side of the issue okay? I was for these bills and I said so AS PART OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS> not in order to okay a war without trying to get him out through other processes. This was simply a republican political gamne taht has since been played, part of the claim that democrats don't know how to fight.

I don't know enough about the Army to know whether it's got enough grunts. I would argue that the US Government doesn't have the extra money for it, if they need extra grunts, they should maybe buy a few less billion dollar bombers or just eliminate all the special deals they made with the big weapons manufacturers.


My understanding is that most of the defence budget goes on the Air Force and the Navy.

The US navy is completely outsized. It's next nearest competitor is the UK these days.

I'll see if I can find a link.

A source? The very fact that sectarian violence is so pervasive and the fact that the country can barely hold itself to together is source enough. If the Iraqi people didnt support these warring factions then the current situation wouldnt exist. The high level of violence that occurs daily would be impossible without civilian support for various sides.

I don't see a source there that says a "majority" of Iraqis (12 million of them) want to blow themselves up.

Demorcarats voted to authoriaze use of force as part of a process of showing Hussein that we were able and wiling to do so, IN THE PRROCESS OF NEGOTIATIONS. Bush lept about ten levels of negotiations. Hell even Colin Powell didn't want to go so soon and got screwed over by the admiinistration.
Regime change bill was the same thing. A vote to show him that we were willing and able doesn't mean they believed Bush should simply pack our bags and go without a good deal more work. Which they said at the time. So try and not show the one side of the issue okay? I was for these bills and I said so AS PART OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS> not in order to okay a war without trying to get him out through other processes. This was simply a republican political gamne taht has since been played, part of the claim that democrats don't know how to fight.


Well if that is true they are true dumbasses.

My understanding is that most of the defence budget goes on the Air Force and the Navy.

The US navy is completely outsized. It's next nearest competitor is the UK these days.

I'll see if I can find a link.

You're going to have to define outsized dude. It has to be large to project power to all corners of the world and maintain peace by lurking in many placrd which would otherwise break into war.

We have to rotate them in and out of the states as well. Any single carrier has two sister ships in port being reoutfitted at any one time. Things wear out. The optempo is higher than ever before, they wear out faster. The amount of money and the number of ships will eventually have to get larger i think. At least the number of carriers will have to go up again, so taht we can actually deploy them properly again.

I think those new supercarriers are worth it just because they are so EXTREME. hehe.

You're going to have to define outsized dude. It has to be large to project power to all corners of the world and maintain peace by lurking in many placrd which would otherwise break into war.
I have yet to see a war that has been prevented by US ships being somewhere (except maybe a war the US would itself have been a party in).

You should always keep in mind that a military is not a goal in and for itself. It's a tool to achieve certain goals. The size and strength of a military needs to be readjusted whenever goals or circumstances change.

To be honest, I don't really see which goals or circumstances would require yet more aircraft carriers at this point in time. There are no conventional wars to be fought, especially with the neocons disgraced and Bush soon leaving office, replaced by someone who will without a doubt do his utmost to not get involved in any overseas adventures.

Well if that is true they are true dumbasses.

so you're saying I am a dumbass? I would have voted the same way> It is supposed to be the process: congress authorizes the president to do what is necessary under the assumption that such permission will underscore our national will to the opponant.aThen said opponent will see that we are for real and back down. It has often been used that way before. Sadly, W isn't a player. So he was led along the garden path by his old neocons buddies, along with a bunch of people like you who they misled. But to claim that we were dumbasses is...moronic.

Internatinal politics is not supposed to involve three weeks of pointedly demanding that another nation give up its nukes while it claims it has none. Then accusing them of lying for a week while they beg for us not to kill them all, then invading and going "oh...sorry" when we find out they really didn't have any weapons and we're serious when they begged us not to whack them. Okay, so it wasn't exactly that way. But close enough. Bush didn't understand the process, and so cost us and the Iraqis a lot of cash. lives, and hope. Now we are in a losing war and the republicans are still blaming DEmocrats for doing their job properly? WTF?

so you're saying I am a dumbass? I would have voted the same way> It is supposed to be the process: congress authorizes the president to do what is necessary under the assumption that such permission will underscore our national will to the opponant.aThen said opponent will see that we are for real and back down. It has often been used that way before. Sadly, W isn't a player. So he was led along the garden path by his old neocons buddies, along with a bunch of people like you who they misled. But to claim that we were dumbasses is...moronic.

Internatinal politics is not supposed to involve three weeks of pointedly demanding that another nation give up its nukes while it claims it has none. Then accusing them of lying for a week while they beg for us not to kill them all, then invading and going "oh...sorry" when we find out they really didn't have any weapons and we're serious when they begged us not to whack them. Okay, so it wasn't exactly that way. But close enough. Bush didn't understand the process, and so cost us and the Iraqis a lot of cash. lives, and hope. Now we are in a losing war and the republicans are still blaming DEmocrats for doing their job properly? WTF?

Luckily you are in the minority. Most people do not think we are losing and you yourself said " Okay, so it wasn't exactly that way". So......what was your point?

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein;12111240]I have yet to see a war that has been prevented by US ships being somewhere (except maybe a war the US would itself have been a party in).[QUOTE]

So...I was never in Bosnia? I was never inserted into Bosnia by a carrier?
I was never in Somolia?
I was never in panama?
I was never in Desert Storm?
I was never in Thailand?
Our forces never went to the indian ocean and elsewhere after the Tsunami in order to save starving dying people?

Dude, our carriers are not just killers. They are very preventative. I could name offhand half a dozen other operations I was on that I can't name because we never did them. But they did indeed stop wars and large numbers of dead people. And I am particulalry proud of them.
We were generally party to these wars because being the most powerful country on eart beside the USSR or CHina, and being considered the leading nation of the free world, we generally have a responsibility to protect our firends and innocents. You can call us warmongers, but in general we do pretty good at ending things peacefully without you ever hearing about it.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein;12111240]I have yet to see a war that has been prevented by US ships being somewhere (except maybe a war the US would itself have been a party in).[QUOTE]

So...I was never in Bosnia? I was never inserted into Bosnia by a carrier?
I was never in Somolia?
I was never in panama?
I was never in Desert Storm?
I was never in Thailand?
Our forces never went to the indian ocean and elsewhere after the Tsunami in order to save starving dying people?

Dude, our carriers are not just killers. They are very preventative. I could name offhand half a dozen other operations I was on that I can't name because we never did them. But they did indeed stop wars and large numbers of dead people. And I am particulalry proud of them.
We were generally party to these wars because being the most powerful country on eart beside the USSR or CHina, and being considered the leading nation of the free world, we generally have a responsibility to protect our firends and innocents. You can call us warmongers, but in general we do pretty good at ending things peacefully without you ever hearing about it.

We disagree on a lot. But what you just wrote, that I have quoted above, is not only true, it is profoundly true.

Luckily you are in the minority. Most people do not think we are losing and you yourself said " Okay, so it wasn't exactly that way". So......what was your point?

well, Bush wasn't claiming Iraq had nukes, and the times weren't what I quoted--I didn't botehr looking them up. But he jumped the gun. And we are losing bud. And yes, most people DO think we are losing. Particulalry our real shooters and war planners. OUr generals are a lot more worried than they are saying. There are aws against it. They can only talk when they retire. But when they do that the conservatives all claim we should have said something when we were still in. Funny little catch 22 they put us in, eh?

Most people do not think we are losing...
Most people probably don't think you're winning either, which is close enough.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
"So far, do you think the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq, or do you think the anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq are winning the war, or is neither side winning the war in Iraq?"

U.S. 15%
Insurgents 14%
Neither 66%
Unsure 5%

[QUOTE=Rooseveldt;12111267][QUOTE=Neu Leonstein;12111240]I have yet to see a war that has been prevented by US ships being somewhere (except maybe a war the US would itself have been a party in).

We disagree on a lot. But what you just wrote, that I have quoted above, is not only true, it is profoundly true.

Thanks Piuos. I know you believe we are the good guys. I do do. But even good guys do stupoid things, and AMerica has done some doozies :) All we can do is try to fix them after the fact, like anybody else.;)

well, Bush wasn't claiming Iraq had nukes, and the times weren't what I quoted--I didn't botehr looking them up. But he jumped the gun. And we are losing bud. And yes, most people DO think we are losing. Particulalry our real shooters and war planners. OUr generals are a lot more worried than they are saying. There are aws against it. They can only talk when they retire. But when they do that the conservatives all claim we should have said something when we were still in. Funny little catch 22 they put us in, eh?

SO how come only 20% of America thinks we are going to lose this War?

Most people probably don't think you're winning either, which is close enough.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I don't believe in "close enough".

[QUOTE=PIUSXII;12111272][QUOTE=Rooseveldt;12111267]

Thanks Piuos. I know you believe we are the good guys. I do do. But even good guys do stupoid things, and AMerica has done some doozies :) All we can do is try to fix them after the fact, like anybody else.;)

You speak the truth.

SO how come only 20% of America thinks we are going to lose this War?

beause they don't know enough about warfighting to get it. I know a LOT and I have been worried for a long time now. I was worried when we didn't commit to afghanstan, and then even more worried when we half committed to Iraq. We could have handled either one, one at a time. But neither at the same time. Guess which BUsh chose--against the advice of the Secretary of the Army...Eric Shinseki.

But they did indeed stop wars and large numbers of dead people.
Without a doubt.

But they didn't prevent them from occuring in the first place. Whether it's Bosnia or Somalia or any other place you mentioned, the war was already going on. The carriers just managed to put a stop to it by blowing one side to bits. :p

The thing is that at the moment (and in the forseeable future) there is a mismatch between what the US Military can do, and what the US Government would really need it to do. More or bigger carriers wouldn't solve that problem, and I would argue that neither would more infantry.

You're going to have to define outsized dude. It has to be large to project power to all corners of the world and maintain peace by lurking in many placrd which would otherwise break into war.

We have to rotate them in and out of the states as well. Any single carrier has two sister ships in port being reoutfitted at any one time. Things wear out. The optempo is higher than ever before, they wear out faster. The amount of money and the number of ships will eventually have to get larger i think. At least the number of carriers will have to go up again, so taht we can actually deploy them properly again.

I am aware of how it works. The point is having twelve carrier battlegroups, in part, reflects the NATO's cold war force structure where the US assumed the bulk of the responsiblity for blue water combat operations against the warsaw pact.

Sure, they can lurk, but there really isn't a blue water navy out there that can challenge it anyway, so to what end? If there is not enough infantry to follow up, all they can do anyway is bomb shit. (Because there aren't really any other navies to destroy). And at any rate, some of that can be accomplished without the Navy these days.

I would argue, since the US navy is unchallenged at sea pretty much, it's effectiveness is now limited by the relative understrength of the army, and it would make sense to cut the ship building program somewhat and spend that money elsewhere.

Without a doubt.

But they didn't prevent them from occuring in the first place.

I won't argue with you about your opinions but I promise, being on a carrier and floating opffshore of a place where people were abou to do a coup, or where local thugs were kililong people as pirates, or were people were simply starving...yeah. Our carriers are a very good thing. Projecting air power has a way of...settling hot heads down.

It's those damn nukes I worry about. And our air forces inability to commit to low level coverage. They actually tried to get rid of our A10's not once but TWICE. And it's the best ship we have in our inventroy IMHO, even today.

as far as force projection, it's a pretty valueable thing> But we need to quit depending on cruise missiles from subs (realy expensive and not very dependable)

And we need to build our carriers around MEU's as has been shown. Bombing without troops on the ground is...not smart.

ANd in general I agree with you that even more infantry won't help if we walk into a neighborhood and blast the kindergarden.

We are in the process of rebulding our army force structure. WHich will help. Especially iwhen we do the whole division thing. But our airforce sucks. Expensive ain't always better.

And our navy has to choose between being able to fight a war agsint any of the nations such as china or india or pakistan or france or germany or whoever. Were not jsut in it against little countries. The military is tasked to defend the US against ALL comers so we waste a lot of cash trying to prepare for things we don't think will get us, but which COULD get us...

beause they don't know enough about warfighting to get it. I know a LOT and I have been worried for a long time now. I was worried when we didn't commit to afghanstan, and then even more worried when we half committed to Iraq. We could have handled either one, one at a time. But neither at the same time. Guess which BUsh chose--against the advice of the Secretary of the Army...Eric Shinseki.

So you are for more troops then?

we should pull out compleetely within 1 year or committ all our chips. No rotation, national guard and reserve go. We lock down Iraq, impose martial law, and treat them like Japan after WWII until they really are capable of defending themselves and ruling themselves.

I do not know which way to go. I'm out of my depth on that decision any more. I think we are at a crossroads. Either way we go will be costly. WHich will be worse I don't know.

I think there are men out there capable of chosing properly and leading us. WIll they take control and do what needs to be done? I dunno. If you look at the history of WWII the guys who ended up leading us were morons (McArthur) or took ages to learn their jobs(Eisenhower) or couldn't handle the pressure or were sort of looney like patton. We have better pro's than then--we've been working at it. But our upper leadership is weak. And our political leadership is really weak. So...we have a long way to go.

And our navy has to choose between being able to fight a war agsint any of the nations such as china or india or pakistan or france or germany or whoever. Were not jsut in it against little countries. The military is tasked to defend the US against ALL comers so we waste a lot of cash trying to prepare for things we don't think will get us, but which COULD get us...

The only probem with spending a lot of money on ship building programmes when no one else is, is that it only takes some whacky genius in another country to have a revolutionary idea, and the trillion dollars you spent over the last ten years is now just so much scrap metal. It's happened several times in the last 200 years.

I want to know why we can't just hire those militia dudes directly. Pay them more than the guys they are working for now, and undercut their leadership.

Whatever the decision is it must not be guided by public opinion.

Whatever the decision is it must not be guided by public opinion.
Is there anything inherently wrong with public opinion?

Is there anything inherently wrong with public opinion?

Yeah, it is not a viable way to conduct a War.

like happned to our battle ships at Pearl eh? Yo're right of course. The assumption is that we are learning and adapting constantly now, because we committed to spending enough cash to do so. HAve we? I don't think so. Else terrorism would have been dealt with by now. We're five years into the war now and our leaders haven't found very effective ways of dealing with it. We made terrible errors early on. We changed leadership. That's what happens, though never at the congressional or presidential level like this. God willing we'll fix it. I DO agree that we waste a lot of cash on useless shit. I am not sold on the stryker. I am not sold on all our subs, or the new fighter. Or our ship force in total--don't know ALL about it :) but i like our carrier force. Havig seen it in action I mean.

Yeah, it is not a viable way to conduct a War.

Of course it is man! It is what makes a democracy so particulalry viable. We just take longer to gear up. But when we finally do we win because we can usually last longer than totalitarian societies.

I want to know why we can't just hire those militia dudes directly. Pay them more than the guys they are working for now, and undercut their leadership.

We did THAt in afghanistan. Where they let the bad guys walk away because the bad guys were cousins and brothers in law and suchlike. No thanks.

Yeah, it is not a viable way to conduct a War.
Question is: Is this foreign involvement really a "war"?

A war serious enough to transcend the wishes of the populace would have to imply a real danger to the country, right? But failing in Iraq, while a disaster for the Iraqis and the region, won't actually endanger the existence of the US, will it?

I'm a great fan of democracy personally, and I don't like blanket statements like the one you made, that's all. I think that not even the American populace would be stupid or apathetic enough to really make a wrong decision on it all, if they were asked the proper question and clearly explained the alternatives.

Of course it is man! It is what makes a democracy so particulalry viable. We just take longer to gear up. But when we finally do we win because we can usually last longer than totalitarian societies.

That was MacArthur's theory too.

I think it's probably true in cases where the entire country is focused on the war, but in cases like now, people aren't that focused on it so I am not sure it holds. After all, during the whole Iraq thing, we've had the housing boom, the housing crash (possibly), political scandals unrelated to the wars conduct, prescription drugs, education reform, tax reform.......

Most people seem unaware of how badly things are going in afganistan.

I'm just not sure that people are really all that engaged.

We did THAt in afghanistan. Where they let the bad guys walk away because the bad guys were cousins and brothers in law and suchlike. No thanks.

I don't mean just give them money and ask them to be nice. Actually hire them on a paid weekly basis. And if they screw around they get fired. (But pay them a fair wedge so they don't want to lose their jobs).

Also, just hire the grunts. Not the bosses. The guys with supposed 'influence' are clearly just trouble makers. They can find their own jobs.

In other news, the US Army, faced with bad equiptment and terrible support, has utilised it's numbers for such tactics as the 'Human Wave Attack'.

mercenary armies have...historically...been a bad idea. I can't imagine a world wher eit will work. But you may be onto something if we simply hire them to do the job and run the military ourselves. In vietnam the units we had real advisors in, not just ticket punchers--they did real good when the viet commanders wewre not mandarins.

Is there anything inherently wrong with public opinion?

In most cases no but when you are dealing with a war, you ignore public opinion for it is influencecd by what they see on TV and read in the papers.