NationStates Jolt Archive

Well we now have official confirmation, dammit.

By Ann Scott Tyson
The Washington Post

Wednesday 13 December 2006

The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.

In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.

The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.

"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines." This official and others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the matter.

The Army, which has 507,000 active-duty soldiers, wants Congress to permanently fund an "end strength," or manpower, of at least 512,000 soldiers, the Army officials said. The Army wants the additional soldiers to be paid for not through wartime supplemental spending bills but in the defense budget, which now covers only 482,000 soldiers.

The Marine Corps, with 180,000 active-duty Marines, seeks to grow by several thousand, including the likely addition of three new infantry battalions. "We need to be bigger. The question is how big do we need to be and how do we get there," a senior Marine Corps official said.

At least two-thirds of Army units in the United States today are rated as not ready to deploy, as well as lacking in manpower, training and - most critically - equipment, according to senior U.S. officials and the Iraq Study Group report. The two ground services estimate that they will need $18 billion a year to repair, replace and upgrade destroyed and worn-out equipment.

If another crisis were to erupt requiring a large number of U.S. ground troops, the Army's plan would be to freeze its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and divert to the new conflict the U.S.-based combat brigade that is first in line to deploy.

Beyond that, however, the Army would have to cobble together war-depleted units to form complete ones to dispatch to the new conflict - at the risk of lost time, unit cohesion and preparedness, senior Army officials said. Moreover, the number of Army and Marine combat units available for an emergency would be limited to about half that of four years ago, experts said, unless the difficult decision to pull forces out of Iraq were made.

"We are concerned about gross readiness ... and ending equipment and personnel shortfalls," said a senior Marine Corps official. The official added that Marine readiness has dropped and that the Corps is unable to fulfill many planned missions for the fight against terrorism.

Senior Pentagon officials stress that the U.S. military has ample air and naval power that could respond immediately to possible contingencies in North Korea, Iran or the Taiwan Strait.

"If you had to go fight another war someplace that somebody sprung upon us, you would keep the people who are currently employed doing what they're doing, and you would use the vast part of the U.S. armed forces that is at home station, to include the enormous strength of our Air Force and our Navy, against the new threat," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

But if the conflict were to require a significant number of ground troops - as in some scenarios such as the disintegration of Pakistan - Army and Marine Corps officials made clear that they would have to scramble to provide them. "Is it the way we'd want to do it? No. Would it be ugly as hell? Yes," said one of the senior Army officials. "But," he added, "we could get it done."

According to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, the Army and Marine Corps today cannot sustain even a modest increase of 20,000 troops in Iraq. U.S. commanders for Afghanistan have asked for more troops but have not received them, noted the Iraq Study Group report, which called it "critical" for the United States to provide more military support for Afghanistan.

"We are facing more operational risk than we have for many, many years," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee. He called it "shocking and scandalous" that two-thirds of Army units are rated "non-deployable." He said the country has not faced such a readiness crisis since the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

The U.S. military has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, including 17 of the Army's 36 available active-duty combat brigades. When Army and Marine Corps combat units return from the war zone, they immediately lose large numbers of experienced troops and leaders who either leave the force, go to school or other assignments, or switch to different units.

The depletion of returning units is so severe that the Marines refer to this phase as the "post-deployment death spiral." Army officials describe it as a process of breaking apart units and rebuilding them "just in time" to deploy again.

Training time for active-duty Army and Marine combat units is only half what it should be because they are spending about the same amount of time in war zones as at home - in contrast to the desired ratio of spending twice as much time at home as on deployment. And the training tends to focus on counterinsurgency skills for Iraq and Afghanistan, causing an erosion in conventional land-warfare capabilities, which could be required for North Korea or Iran, officials say.

If a conflict with North Korea or Iran were to break out and demand a medium to large ground force, the Army would be forced to respond with whatever it had available.

The U.S. military today could cobble together two or three divisions in an emergency - compared with as many as six in 2001 - not enough to carry out major operations such as overthrowing the Iranian government. "That's the kind of extreme scenario that could cripple us," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution.

Unable to count on a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Army seeks to ease the manpower strain by accelerating plans to have 70 active-duty and National Guard combat brigades available for rotations by 2011. Next year, for example, the Army intends to bring two brigades on a training mission back into rotation. It is investing $36 billion in Guard equipment in anticipation of heavier use of the Guard.

I'm counting down the days until my IRR obligation is up.

Well if the shit hits the fan and a draft is started, I'm personally safe, due to several factors. That doesn't mean jack shit for all the people I know that won't be, though. :(

"Is anybody NOT convinced taht the US military is broken?" Well I am convinced that you need to pay a little more attention to your speeling when posting. But to answer your question, I'm not convinced it's broken. It is stretched too thin and more personel are needed but that doesn't mean that it's broken.

It'd also be nice if someone else besides Team America would step up to the plate once in a while and play World Police.

We increased the size of our miitary in every single war we have been in. Does that mean our military was broken then? No it does not. Just like it is not broken now.

The Douglas Adams quote, "Looks like a fish. Moves like a fish. Steers like a cow." sprung into mind. I leave you with that.

Well I am convinced that you need to pay a little more attention to your speeling when posting.

And I am convinced that you need a blowjob, else you wouldn't be nagging people about thier spelling on the farging internet. Should I bother you about THAT everytime I see you whining?:D

We increased the size of our miitary in every single war we have been in. Does that mean our military was broken then? No it does not. Just like it is not broken now.
We DRASTICALLY increased the size of our military in every war we have been in. Except for this one. I would say that the fact that we have not has broken the army this time around. When the military itself states that it cannot maintain its level of operations, and that 2/3 of its forces are undeployable, and that in order to make any more deployable it will have to begin cannibalising units of manpower and equipment, why I would call that broken.
IMHO you are putting the cart on top of the horse.

Draft? Hahahaha,

I'm to old, my MOS is very outdated and I have my honorable discharge. I am safe.:)

The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.

In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.

Wait...I thought this was already a problem, now we're going to deploy reservists more often for even longer?

How the fuck is that a solution?? It's just making the problem larger.

The push for more ground troops comes as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world.

"The Army has configured itself to sustain the effort in Iraq and, to a lesser degree, in Afghanistan. Beyond that, you've got some problems," said one of the senior Army officials. "Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines."This official and others interviewed for this report spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the matter.

The Army, which has 507,000 active-duty soldiers, wants Congress to permanently fund an "end strength," or manpower, of at least 512,000 soldiers, the Army officials said. The Army wants the additional soldiers to be paid for not through wartime supplemental spending bills but in the defense budget, which now covers only 482,000 soldiers.

507,000 to 512,000

Someone else want to explain to me how a mere 5,000 soldiers is going to make any difference? It's going way over my head here.

The Marine Corps, with 180,000 active-duty Marines, seeks to grow by several thousand, including the likely addition of three new infantry battalions. "We need to be bigger. The question is how big do we need to be and how do we get there," a senior Marine Corps official said.

Sounds like the Marines might be a little more on-the-ball with this than the Army, at least...

At least two-thirds of Army units in the United States today are rated as not ready to deploy, as well as lacking in manpower, training and - most critically - equipment, according to senior U.S. officials and the Iraq Study Group report. The two ground services estimate that they will need $18 billion a year to repair, replace and upgrade destroyed and worn-out equipment.

One word...

DISGRACEFUL :mad:

If another crisis were to erupt requiring a large number of U.S. ground troops, the Army's plan would be to freeze its forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and divert to the new conflict the U.S.-based combat brigade that is first in line to deploy.

One guess as to what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan in such a situation.

Beyond that, however, the Army would have to cobble together war-depleted units to form complete ones to dispatch to the new conflict - at the risk of lost time, unit cohesion and preparedness, senior Army officials said. Moreover, the number of Army and Marine combat units available for an emergency would be limited to about half that of four years ago, experts said, unless the difficult decision to pull forces out of Iraq were made.

"We are concerned about gross readiness ... and ending equipment and personnel shortfalls," said a senior Marine Corps official. The official added that Marine readiness has dropped and that the Corps is unable to fulfill many planned missions for the fight against terrorism.

Iran???

Senior Pentagon officials stress that the U.S. military has ample air and naval power that could respond immediately to possible contingencies in North Korea, Iran or the Taiwan Strait.

"If you had to go fight another war someplace that somebody sprung upon us, you would keep the people who are currently employed doing what they're doing, and you would use the vast part of the U.S. armed forces that is at home station, to include the enormous strength of our Air Force and our Navy, against the new threat," Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

Thank the FSM that we have the best navy and air-force in the world...if we didn't, I don't even want to imagine the shitstorm we'd be riding out right now.

But if the conflict were to require a significant number of ground troops - as in some scenarios such as the disintegration of Pakistan - Army and Marine Corps officials made clear that they would have to scramble to provide them. "Is it the way we'd want to do it? No. Would it be ugly as hell? Yes," said one of the senior Army officials. "But," he added, "we could get it done."

I would hope that India would have a vested interest in such an event...enough that the need for U.S. ground troops would be lessened.

According to Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, the Army and Marine Corps today cannot sustain even a modest increase of 20,000 troops in Iraq.

...but doesn't Bush want to increase troop levels? :rolleyes:

U.S. commanders for Afghanistan have asked for more troops but have not received them, noted the Iraq Study Group report, which called it "critical" for the United States to provide more military support for Afghanistan.

I would like every U.S. citizen to take a long hard look at this paragraph...

There is one, and ONLY one reason for this situation, and it rests squarely on Bush's shoulders and his decision to invade Iraq.

...and now look at the mess we're in.

"We are facing more operational risk than we have for many, many years," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee. He called it "shocking and scandalous" that two-thirds of Army units are rated "non-deployable." He said the country has not faced such a readiness crisis since the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

Good to see that someone agrees with me.

The U.S. military has more than 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, including 17 of the Army's 36 available active-duty combat brigades.

Which one harbored the terrorists which planned and executed 9/11??

I'm having trouble remembering. :rolleyes:

When Army and Marine Corps combat units return from the war zone, they immediately lose large numbers of experienced troops and leaders who either leave the force, go to school or other assignments, or switch to different units.

The depletion of returning units is so severe that the Marines refer to this phase as the "post-deployment death spiral." Army officials describe it as a process of breaking apart units and rebuilding them "just in time" to deploy again.

Training time for active-duty Army and Marine combat units is only half what it should be because they are spending about the same amount of time in war zones as at home - in contrast to the desired ratio of spending twice as much time at home as on deployment. And the training tends to focus on counterinsurgency skills for Iraq and Afghanistan, causing an erosion in conventional land-warfare capabilities, which could be required for North Korea or Iran, officials say.

So not only are we stretched too thin, but we're sending our servicemen out without vital training...great. *sigh*

If a conflict with North Korea or Iran were to break out and demand a medium to large ground force, the Army would be forced to respond with whatever it had available.

The U.S. military today could cobble together two or three divisions in an emergency - compared with as many as six in 2001 - not enough to carry out major operations such as overthrowing the Iranian government. "That's the kind of extreme scenario that could cripple us," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution.

Two or three divisions? Tired from overdeployment and lacking sufficient training due to said overdeployment?

The Air-Force and Navy better be on the fucking ball, should things go south.

Unable to count on a significant troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Army seeks to ease the manpower strain by accelerating plans to have 70 active-duty and National Guard combat brigades available for rotations by 2011. Next year, for example, the Army intends to bring two brigades on a training mission back into rotation. It is investing $36 billion in Guard equipment in anticipation of heavier use of the Guard.

Ugh...I don't even want to go into it. The National Guard should be for HOME defense, not global misadventures. :mad:

---

I will hereby laugh in the face of any conservative who tries to tell me that Republicans are more concerned about the state of the military than Democrats.

Donald Rumsfeld will go down as the worst Secretary of Defense in our nation's history...and Bush deserves every bit as much of the blame for keeping that incompetent fool in his post...until it became politically inconvenient for him to do so.

If it were within my power, Rumsfeld would be in a jail-cell. He set our ground forces back at least ten years. :mad:

I won't deny that the American military is stretched way thin...

but broken? No.

The problem in this "war" is not that we don't have enough people at all- it won't be an issue if there's a draft (which I'm no sure there will be). The problem is that nobody wants to fight for an elusive cause that keeps changing as time goes on. Bush's "war on terror" originally started in Afghanistan, to catch al-Qaeda and the Taliban for flying planes into our buildings on 9.11.01..... now we're in Iraq.... for the war on terror. We wouldn't have needed to wage the war on terror there if we didn't freaking go!

But, if there is a draft, what would the factors be exactly? I know there used to be a draft a few decades ago, (in Vietnam?) but it got axed for some reason (right?) I really don't know much about drafts, sorry. :(

It'd also be nice if someone else besides Team America would step up to the plate once in a while and play World Police.

Riiiight, the only ones, cept for...ya know, the Coalition of the willing. Infact, has the US been deployed anywere else besides Iraq and Afghanistan? I am looking at the defence link now and I can't find info on anything else. I may be wrong, but it looks like they're involved in two countries. IF this isn't the case, please tell me where else, I want to know

Meanwhile, Australia has open on the side a list of its global operations in an easy to find location, you click on it to discover that australia has commitments deployed in 6 different countries, maybe 5, and this makes up 9 different operations, sure, the troop commitments may be small, but thats cause we only have a population of 20 million.

Please don't think America is all that acts as world police, there are others

Australia's Global Operations (http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm) Just for referance.

Love Anisarian,
The Singing Lady

Riiiight, the only ones, cept for...ya know, the Coalition of the willing. Infact, has the US been deployed anywere else besides Iraq and Afghanistan? I am looking at the defence link now and I can't find info on anything else. I may be wrong, but it looks like they're involved in two countries. IF this isn't the case, please tell me where else, I want to know

Meanwhile, Australia has open on the side a list of its global operations in an easy to find location, you click on it to discover that australia has commitments deployed in 6 different countries, maybe 5, and this makes up 9 different operations, sure, the troop commitments may be small, but thats cause we only have a population of 20 million.

Please don't think America is all that acts as world police, there are others

Australia's Global Operations (http://www.defence.gov.au/globalops.cfm) Just for referance.

Love Anisarian,
The Singing Lady

Is Australia "at war" with a bunch of Islamofundies? Is the Australian military stretched so thin because nobody wants to get themselves killed in Iraq?

I'm not sure that Australia could be playing "World Police", but if they are, they're not in it like the US is.

Naggeroth,
The US has bases in several countries around the world. It's been that way for some time. I'd go so far as to say the US has a hand in nearly every cookie jar on the planet.

251,000 soldiers alone are serving in 120 countries today. That number omits airmen seamen marines, and coasties. With 507,000 that means HALF our Army active forces are deployed somewhere. That's an insane deployment rate.
Major deployments that are sucking us dry:
Korea
Germany
BiH
Kosovo
Afghanistan
Iraq

Not to mention all the forces we have supporting these operations in and around those areas.

251,000 soldiers alone are srerving in 120 countries today. That number omits airmen seamen marines, and coasties.

That's only the US?! :eek:

Yep, as Dosuun said, the US has its hand in nearly every cookie jar on the planet. :mad:

Why exactly do we need bases in foreign countries?

That's only the US?! :eek:

Yep, as Dosuun said, the US has its hand in nearly every cookie jar on the planet. :mad:

Why exactly do we need bases in foreign countries?

You're alive!!!!

well, besides Iraq and Afghansistan there are other places where we are serving as peackeepers, like Bosnia and Kosovo. Unfortunately just becauise those places aren't as dangerous doesn't mean they don't wear our troops out and prevent them from being with their families. We have people in South Korea protecting them from the N Koreans, and they've been tehre 50 years now. We have troops all over the place so that other countries know we are committed to protecting them, basically. Or in support of other forces who are in real combat zones. Only about 10%^ are actually combat arms (infantry and tankers and stuff like that). That means our line battalions are wearing out even faster than the rest, and being stuck in duties they aren't trained for. We're in a real mess, and getting worse.
Hey! It's 6 am again for you! It's only 3 am here and I am an old fart. Is this just xmas or is it normaL?

You're alive!!!!

Yeah, I am!!!! :D

But really, why does the US need bases in Germany? I can understand Korea but Germany? :confused:

And can someone please explain the factors of the draft?

let's see the US has troops in Australia at pine gap

Yeah, I am!!!! :D

But really, why does the US need bases in Germany? I can understand Korea but Germany? :confused:

And can someone please explain the factors of the draft?

goes back to the cold war day's

Conscription is a general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority, but it is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just men) to serve in their armed forces.

well, besides Iraq and Afghansistan there are other places where we are serving as peackeepers, like Bosnia and Kosovo. Unfortunately just becauise those places aren't as dangerous doesn't mean they don't wear our troops out and prevent them from being with their families. We have people in South Korea protecting them from the N Koreans, and they've been tehre 50 years now. We have troops all over the place so that other countries know we are committed to protecting them, basically. Or in support of other forces who are in real combat zones. Only about 10%^ are actually combat arms (infantry and tankers and stuff like that). That means our line battalions are wearing out even faster than the rest, and being stuck in duties they aren't trained for. We're in a real mess, and getting worse.
Hey! It's 6 am again for you! It's only 3 am here and I am an old fart. Is this just xmas or is it normaL?
I don't know.

goes back to the cold war day's

Conscription is a general term for involuntary labor demanded by some established authority, but it is most often used in the specific sense of government policies that require citizens (often just men) to serve in their armed forces.

I know what a draft is, but is it only men? If it is/was then it'll change....

well, until a few years ago to defend against USSR invasion. Now they act as a forward satging base for operations in BiH, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a lot of other places. We're not defending Germany any more. They're simply letting us use our bases there so we can work more effectively elsewhere.

And the draft...You'll have to go to someone besides me for a real discussion of it, I think. I know a bit but not enough to expound on it. Basically we randomly picked people to serve in the military (marines were volunteer) and it was unfiar due to exemptions which mostly went to folks with money or connections. So we went with an "all volunteer force" which is now in danger of being overwhelmed because it doesn't have enough troops to work with any more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_draft
if you find, in a few years, that it is an issue, go to the doctor. There are fixes now.

Yeah, I am!!!! :D

But really, why does the US need bases in Germany? I can understand Korea but Germany? :confused:

And can someone please explain the factors of the draft?

I think they're convinced Nazis are about to overthrow the government.

I know what a draft is, but is it only men? If it is/was then it'll change....

Yeah, it's only men. As far as I know, women in the army aren't even allowed to go into combat.

I know what a draft is, but is it only men? If it is/was then it'll change....

men most Nation's,
but National military service is compulsory in the Israeli Defence Force for both men and female's

Yeah, it's only men. As far as I know, women in the army aren't even allowed to go into combat.

No, they're only not allowed to jion combat arms units ie. infantry, armor, artillery or cavalry. Women can and do go into combat In the American Army. In Panama my best friend's company commander was a woman and she led them into combat like she was John Wayne or something. She was an offircer, a military policeman. THey get used pretty hard, so if you are female and want to see the shit, go in the MP's.

But really, why does the US need bases in Germany? I can understand Korea but Germany? :confused:

Aside from S. Korea, the three nations that have the largest U.S. military presence (Iraq/Afghanistan aside)...are Germany, Japan, and Italy.

I'll let you make the connection...

It'd also be nice if someone else besides Team America would step up to the plate once in a while and play World Police.

If the U.S. are the world police, they are incredibly corrupt. Saddam was supported for over 20 years. Burma has a military junta that removed a popularly elected leader. Are the U.S. going there? No.

The U.S are not world police, they are closer to a protection racket.

I'm not convinced that the US Military is broken. I know it is not perfect and has room for improvement as does practically everything in this world. I'm sure our Defence Department and Military Officials could probably restrategize and strategically replace some certain bases and military presence throughout this world, namely the ones in Germany. I don't see any purpose of having a base nor troops in Germany.

Definately not broken.....

It'd also be nice if someone else besides Team America would step up to the plate once in a while and play World Police.

why would the rest of the world step in and illegally invade other countries to protect your interests?

world police my arse.

The mililtary itself is not the problem. They've proven that they can manage with inadequate equipment and supplies. What this proves is that the civilian leaders are only peripherally acquainted with military reality. They had the same problem in Viet Nam.

Aside from S. Korea, the three nations that have the largest U.S. military presence (Iraq/Afghanistan aside)...are Germany, Japan, and Italy.

I'll let you make the connection...

So after 61 years, Germany, Italy, and Japan are still not to be trusted, because we Americans believe that if we leave they're going to have another go at world domination? :rolleyes:

I say screw the old Axis powers, and the Middle East.

So after 61 years, Germany, Italy, and Japan are still not to be trusted, because we Americans believe that if we leave they're going to have another go at world domination? :rolleyes:

I say screw the old Axis powers, and the Middle East.

give me the good old day's fighting the Axis power's, then the Hell hole of the Middle East

I'm hoping I have too many medical issues to be drafted.

And yet the military is forced by law to respect and support Il Douche despite his asshattery and incompetence making them squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Some rules really need to be updated.

why would the rest of the world step in and illegally invade other countries to protect your interests?

world police my arse.

So you're saying we should just mind our own buisness the next time the UN comes begging for troops and air support?

Be realistic. Big countries screw smaller countries, always have, always will. Big countries also use their influence to get a bigger piece of the pie. There are no exceptions. Every single nation on earth has blood on it's hands, trying to point fingers is like trying to pick the valedictorian of summer school.

Does the US push people around to protect it's interests? Yeah, it does. Does the US also lend troops when they're needed? Yeah, it does. One goes with the other.

The mililtary itself is not the problem. They've proven that they can manage with inadequate equipment and supplies. What this proves is that the civilian leaders are only peripherally acquainted with military reality. They had the same problem in Viet Nam.
The military is only peripherally acquainted with reality beyond their mission scopes. That was much of the problem in Vietnam. Not civilian leaders, not protestors, not China... failure to have any real achievable long-term objective and failure to do anything other than stomp on the Vietnamese people until it became political non-viable.

The same problem is present in Iraq. What is the mission in Iraq? How on Earth is the military supposed to accomplish this goal? If the mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, it's long over. If the mission was to remove the threat of WMDs, it failed completely. If the mission was to reduce terrorism or threaten terrorist groups, it backfired. If the mission is to stabilize Iraq in the long term, military force can't accomplish this short of slaughtering the populace until the entire country is united in its hatred of the US army; meanwhile, the continuing US presence seems to be escalating matters more than calming them down.

And yet the military is forced by law to respect and support Il Douche despite his asshattery and incompetence making them squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Some rules really need to be updated.

No, some rules shouldn't be updated, ever. Thats why the constitution is so hard to change.

Bush, as bad as he is, is a short term problem. The boy gets his eight years then he fades away. We've weathered worse. The fact of the matter is that Bush hasn't really done any damage to this country that can't be undone in a couple of years. Suggesting that the military start refusing orders it doesn't like is a bad idea. It is attempting to solve a short term issue by creating a long term problem. A military dictatorship would be far worse than anything the little hydrocephallic from Texas can muster, and make no mistakes, once the military starts ignoring the chain of command a power play is not far off.

I'm not convinced that the US Military is broken. I know it is not perfect and has room for improvement as does practically everything in this world. I'm sure our Defence Department and Military Officials could probably restrategize and strategically replace some certain bases and military presence throughout this world, namely the ones in Germany. I don't see any purpose of having a base nor troops in Germany.

Definately not broken.....
Originally troops were in place to make sure Germany didn't rise again. Within a single generation, they were there as the first line of defense (or offense) against the Soviet bloc in a land war over Europe. Now they're mostly there for tradition's sake, and as a conveniently located staging point.

And the case of Germany brings up another point about Iraq. After WWII showed the failures of WWI's peace process up, the Allies wisely decided that the only way to avoid future problems after having crushed the Germans was to build the German nation up. Nation-building is how you construct long term peace... it's expensive, but it works.

This has been largely avoided in Iraq.

We DRASTICALLY increased the size of our military in every war we have been in. Except for this one. I would say that the fact that we have not has broken the army this time around. When the military itself states that it cannot maintain its level of operations, and that 2/3 of its forces are undeployable, and that in order to make any more deployable it will have to begin cannibalising units of manpower and equipment, why I would call that broken.
IMHO you are putting the cart on top of the horse.

Well we can look to the draw down of our forces under both his father and Clinton so I guess you can say that Bush is the victim of the past in this case when it comes to overall troop numbers.

That's only the US?! :eek:

Yep, as Dosuun said, the US has its hand in nearly every cookie jar on the planet. :mad:

Why exactly do we need bases in foreign countries?

Cold War mentality unfortunately.

And yet the military is forced by law to respect and support Il Douche despite his asshattery and incompetence making them squeal like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Some rules really need to be updated.

Good luck in getting the Constitution changed.

So after 61 years, Germany, Italy, and Japan are still not to be trusted, because we Americans believe that if we leave they're going to have another go at world domination? :rolleyes:

I know...silly isn't it?

I say screw the old Axis powers, and the Middle East.

If it were up to me, the U.S. wouldn't have military forces in any nation, aside from Afghanistan.

Sadly, it is not up to me.

Now they're mostly there for tradition's sake, and as a conveniently located staging point.
Imagine trying to build up another place like Ramstein somewhere else. That's just plain expensive!

And besides, where would you put it? You can't trust most of the other places to stay stable regardless of what happens. Central Asia is a hellhole full of dictators, massacres and revolutions. The Middle East is anything but stable.

Short of maybe Turkey, I don't see another place to build up a long-term hub. And in Turkey, Americans are even less popular than in Germany (and one could argue that around the major bases, Germans and Americans get along quite well).

I say that one may pull out combat troops from Germany (and to be honest, there's not all that many left anyways, they all left for Iraq or first Iraq and then home), but the main bases would have to stay.

one could argue that around the major bases, Germans and Americans get along quite well

That was my experience. I was stationed in Friedberg, Hessen from 2000 to 2002. The only problems I had with locals were with groups of drunken Turks, and to be perfectly honest the group of drunken Americans I was often with started at least half of those problems. Still, those incidents were generally few and far between.

The US military is NOT broken.

I can state that as a fact.

American commercials concerning the army ("join the army") make it to even other countries. Is that legal? Is that necessary? Is that possible?

Well we now have official confirmation, dammit.

Here's your link, BTW. Try to remember to slip it in for courtesies sake when you post an article. ;)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/12/AR2006121201697.html

This is rather old, old news. Rummy said as much when he came in and said we couldn't take care of even the "war-and-a-half" strategy. Then we go and try to win two. (>.<)

We DRASTICALLY increased the size of our military in every war we have been in. Except for this one. I would say that the fact that we have not has broken the army this time around. When the military itself states that it cannot maintain its level of operations, and that 2/3 of its forces are undeployable, and that in order to make any more deployable it will have to begin cannibalising units of manpower and equipment, why I would call that broken.
IMHO you are putting the cart on top of the horse.

As I've been saying for ages (since befor Bush II was elected) the draw down was one of the biggest mistakes in the last 25 years. Going from a world made up of one major opponent and a few minor ones to a world where we have many small to medium opponents does neccessitate a chjange. But the idea of the peace dividend was sheer idiocy.

Wait...I thought this was already a problem, now we're going to deploy reservists more often for even longer?

Indeed. These forces were never intended to be long term.

Iran???

Iran isn't currently on the planning board. We have our hands full loosing two wars as is.

I would hope that India would have a vested interest in such an event...enough that the need for U.S. ground troops would be lessened.

Hmmm... Indo-Pakistan wars are not where the US want's to go. They almost always carry the heavy undercurrent of religious wars.

I will hereby laugh in the face of any conservative who tries to tell me that Republicans are more concerned about the state of the military than Democrats.

Including those of us who are at least as disgusted as you by the Chuicken-Hawk cabinet lead by a deserter, and their slander and abuse of the military and of other politician's service records?

Donald Rumsfeld will go down as the worst Secretary of Defense in our nation's history...and Bush deserves every bit as much of the blame for keeping that incompetent fool in his post...until it became politically inconvenient for him to do so.

If it were within my power, Rumsfeld would be in a jail-cell. He set our ground forces back at least ten years. :mad:

I repeat my call for war crimes trials for both.

I won't deny that the American military is stretched way thin...

but broken? No.

The problem in this "war" is not that we don't have enough people at all- it won't be an issue if there's a draft (which I'm no sure there will be). The problem is that nobody wants to fight for an elusive cause that keeps changing as time goes on. Bush's "war on terror" originally started in Afghanistan, to catch al-Qaeda and the Taliban for flying planes into our buildings on 9.11.01..... now we're in Iraq.... for the war on terror. We wouldn't have needed to wage the war on terror there if we didn't freaking go!

But, if there is a draft, what would the factors be exactly? I know there used to be a draft a few decades ago, (in Vietnam?) but it got axed for some reason (right?) I really don't know much about drafts, sorry. :(

Might I suggest a good article explaining why military conscription (the draft) came about, and why it's gone, never to return:

Why The Draft Is Really, Really Dead and Gone (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200459.asp), by James Dunnigan. (Ignore the ads and op/ed pieces there, but the military news and explanation is usually good stuff.)

That's only the US?! :eek:

Yep, as Dosuun said, the US has its hand in nearly every cookie jar on the planet. :mad:

Why exactly do we need bases in foreign countries?

It has to do with logistics basing allowing the US military to reach anywhere.

The obvious next question is why does the US need that power projection capacity.

Part of it is a hang over from the Cold War, which is historically a legacy of Wilson's (and to a lesser extent, T. Roosevelt's) injection of the US idealistic streak of the "Shining City on th Hill" into US foreign policy. Instead of being the example, we were to bring democracy to the benighted foreign masses.

And part of it is simple self defense. In the past, we depended on being isolated, here in North America, from those who might do us harm. (The reasons for others wanting to do us harm sometimes, but not always, stem from the above.

And the final part is self interest.

I know what a draft is, but is it only men? If it is/was then it'll change....

Historically, in the US, it has always been male.

No, they're only not allowed to jion combat arms units ie. infantry, armor, artillery or cavalry. Women can and do go into combat In the American Army. In Panama my best friend's company commander was a woman and she led them into combat like she was John Wayne or something. She was an offircer, a military policeman. THey get used pretty hard, so if you are female and want to see the shit, go in the MP's.

What was your MOS? I'm just being curious/nosy. ;)

The mililtary itself is not the problem. They've proven that they can manage with inadequate equipment and supplies. What this proves is that the civilian leaders are only peripherally acquainted with military reality. They had the same problem in Viet Nam.

So after 61 years, Germany, Italy, and Japan are still not to be trusted, because we Americans believe that if we leave they're going to have another go at world domination? :rolleyes:

I say screw the old Axis powers, and the Middle East.

Nope. It's just that those locations are or have been very convenient for forward basing (keeping equipment that's hard to move near potential hot spots) and the like. It's easier to move a bunch of tanks from Gernmany to Saudi than from Fort Hood Texas.

I'm hoping I have too many medical issues to be drafted.

The military is only peripherally acquainted with reality beyond their mission scopes. That was much of the problem in Vietnam. Not civilian leaders, not protestors, not China... failure to have any real achievable long-term objective and failure to do anything other than stomp on the Vietnamese people until it became political non-viable.

The same problem is present in Iraq. What is the mission in Iraq? How on Earth is the military supposed to accomplish this goal? If the mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, it's long over. If the mission was to remove the threat of WMDs, it failed completely. If the mission was to reduce terrorism or threaten terrorist groups, it backfired. If the mission is to stabilize Iraq in the long term, military force can't accomplish this short of slaughtering the populace until the entire country is united in its hatred of the US army; meanwhile, the continuing US presence seems to be escalating matters more than calming them down.

The mission is the concern of the civilian leadership. The "mission creep" from the stated mission (WMDs) to the current inadequately explained (unexplained in my books) mission is largely just face Bush trying to save face.

Originally troops were in place to make sure Germany didn't rise again. Within a single generation, they were there as the first line of defense (or offense) against the Soviet bloc in a land war over Europe. Now they're mostly there for tradition's sake, and as a conveniently located staging point.

Note that USAREUR facilities and forces are undergoing a realignment. The 1st Inf and 1st Arm divisions were supposed to come home this summer, for example.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/germany.htm

And the case of Germany brings up another point about Iraq. After WWII showed the failures of WWI's peace process up, the Allies wisely decided that the only way to avoid future problems after having crushed the Germans was to build the German nation up. Nation-building is how you construct long term peace... it's expensive, but it works.

This has been largely avoided in Iraq.

Remember that the nations we rebuilty after WWII were already modern. Iraq had nothing like the social and cultural capital that Germany and Japan did. Only the slow march of history can possibly bring the sorts of underpinnings needed to make Iraq a modern democratic state.

Well we can look to the draw down of our forces under both his father and Clinton so I guess you can say that Bush is the victim of the past in this case when it comes to overall troop numbers.

As I said above, Rummy admitted we couldn't pull off the Two War "win-hold-win" strategy. He knew that when we got involved in Iraq.

Imagine trying to build up another place like Ramstein somewhere else. That's just plain expensive!

And besides, where would you put it? You can't trust most of the other places to stay stable regardless of what happens. Central Asia is a hellhole full of dictators, massacres and revolutions. The Middle East is anything but stable.

Short of maybe Turkey, I don't see another place to build up a long-term hub. And in Turkey, Americans are even less popular than in Germany (and one could argue that around the major bases, Germans and Americans get along quite well).

I say that one may pull out combat troops from Germany (and to be honest, there's not all that many left anyways, they all left for Iraq or first Iraq and then home), but the main bases would have to stay.

A lot of bases are going back, for good or bad...

[QUOTE=Dosuun;12133345]"Is anybody NOT convinced taht the US military is broken?" Well I am convinced that you need to pay a little more attention to your speeling when posting. But to answer your question, I'm not convinced it's broken. It is stretched too thin and more personel are needed but that doesn't mean that it's broken.

"Personel?" :)

American commercials concerning the army ("join the army") make it to even other countries. Is that legal? Is that necessary? Is that possible?

It's quite possible for non-US citizens to join the military. I knew quite a few people when I was in that were working on getting their citizenship. If they didn't speak English they were sent to the Defense Language Institute to learn English before going to basic training. As far as job performance goes they tend to do just as well as anyone else. Also, the Army (and I'll assume the other branches) goes to great lengths to ensure that these soldiers aren't treated differently because of their national origin. Anyway, given the large amount of diversity in the Army anyway someone from Mexico or the Dominican Republic isn't going to stick out any more than anyone else.

It's quite possible for non-US citizens to join the military. I knew quite a few people when I was in that were working on getting their citizenship. If they didn't speak English they were sent to the Defense Language Institute to learn English before going to basic training. As far as job performance goes they tend to do just as well as anyone else. Also, the Army (and I'll assume the other branches) goes to great lengths to ensure that these soldiers aren't treated differently because of their national origin. Anyway, given the large amount of diversity in the Army anyway someone from Mexico or the Dominican Republic isn't going to stick out any more than anyone else.

When I was at Ft sill I saw a TON of hispanic soldiers. They were second to whites as the predominant color of troops who had enlisted, atleast in FA. Maybe Field Artillery doesn't appeal to black soldiers? *shrug*

Serving in the military is a good way to get your citizenship. One of my friends did so.

When I was at Ft sill I saw a TON of hispanic soldiers. They were second to whites as the predominant color of troops who had enlisted, atleast in FA. Maybe Field Artillery doesn't appeal to black soldiers? *shrug*

Most Hispanic soldiers are at least 2nd generation, judging from the guys I knew. Still, I did know a few who had literally crossed the border and went straight to the recruiting station. From what I understand you get a fast track to citizenship if you're in the military. I kinda feel sorry for a friend of mine from up here who just joined the Marines a little while ago. His last name is Martinez and his grandmother came from Mexico, but he's about as culturally Hispanic as the guys on Fargo and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. I'm sure he'll get more than a few "WTF!" reactions from some of the kids from the Southwest who've retained any degree of Hispanic culture.

Most Hispanic soldiers are at least 2nd generation, judging from the guys I knew. Still, I did know a few who had literally crossed the border and went straight to the recruiting station. From what I understand you get a fast track to citizenship if you're in the military. I kinda feel sorry for a friend of mine from up here who just joined the Marines a little while ago. His last name is Martinez and his grandmother came from Mexico, but he's about as culturally Hispanic as the guys on Fargo and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. I'm sure he'll get more than a few "WTF!" reactions from some of the kids from the Southwest who've retained any degree of Hispanic culture.

He should be okay. We had a guy like that in my old unit, Frank Martin (his great grandfather changed it from Martinez, apparently). A few of the more "Latino" guys gave him a bit of a teasing about it at first, but in the end they just accpted him like we all did. (I think I was probably the most cosmopolitan guy in the unit - now, if only I could've picked up language as well as culture...)

I'd love to be sympathetic, however, if you will elect bellicose, ignorant morons as leaders, who appoint similar advisors, then you can hardly moan when they involve the armed forces in quagmires.

*Laughs at your misfortune*

I'd love to be sympathetic, however, if you will elect bellicose, ignorant morons as leaders, who appoint similar advisors, then you can hardly moan when they involve the armed forces in quagmires.

*Laughs at your misfortune*

Eh. We got Bush jr for eight years. You got Tony Blair for as long as he can hang on by his fingernails.
Not swapping.

Most Hispanic soldiers are at least 2nd generation, judging from the guys I knew. Still, I did know a few who had literally crossed the border and went straight to the recruiting station. From what I understand you get a fast track to citizenship if you're in the military. I kinda feel sorry for a friend of mine from up here who just joined the Marines a little while ago. His last name is Martinez and his grandmother came from Mexico, but he's about as culturally Hispanic as the guys on Fargo and doesn't speak a word of Spanish. I'm sure he'll get more than a few "WTF!" reactions from some of the kids from the Southwest who've retained any degree of Hispanic culture.

One of my friends died in the marines getting his citizenship. He was born and raised in Tanzania and came here with the marines, went to college, then was sent to Iraq where he died.

I'd love to be sympathetic, however, if you will elect bellicose, ignorant morons as leaders, who appoint similar advisors, then you can hardly moan when they involve the armed forces in quagmires.

*Laughs at your misfortune*

:D

We'll trade him in though, for say someone such as...oh...Tom Tancredo? Or Zell Miller (<--Democrat!).

Someone with more balls, for one.

What was your MOS? I'm just being curious/nosy. ;)


I ended up with three.

I was 11B20 and got hurt to badly to hump. So they let me reclass. I picked "46Q". Which was fun but it meant I couldn't get promoted cause there were like...2 E7's in the whole freaking army for that MOS. So I ended up weaseling my way into the 35 series where I was supposed to OJT until I could get into a full MOS but the Army in its infinite wisdom kept putting off my going to an actualy school. I finally got sick of it and got out after ten years.

That's partly why I have such weird stories. I ended up going all over the damned place as a 46Q. Which was fun but not really fulfilling. I always felt sort of embarassed about having such an easy job...Anyway, after I got out of DINFOS I kept getting shuffled around and being "that guy with a camera" and when you se a grunt with a camera who can jump out of planes and hates being in garrison what do you do with him? You send him to MI.


You? How you liking Osaka? When I was on that side of the world I was a happy little 11B, sleeping in the mud and rocks up near Camp Sears.:cool:


hey Captain Pooby--you keep mentionoing Fort Sill...that's an army post. Do the marines do their Artillery training there? (never had to go there so I wouldn't know)

I ended up with three.

I was 11B20 and got hurt to badly to hump. So they let me reclass. I picked 46Q. Which was fun but it meant I couldn't get promoted cause there were like...2 E7's in the whole freaking army for that MOS. So I ended up weaseling my way into the 35 series where I was supposed to OJT until I could get into a full MOS but the Army in its infinite wisdom kept putting off my going to an actualy school. I finally got sick of it and got out after ten years.

That's partly why I have such weird stories. I ended up going all over the damned place as a 46Q. Whcih was fun but not really fulfilling. I always felt sort of embarassed about having such an easy job...

Heh. :) It's exactly those stories that caused me to ask.

You?

Me? So sorry charlie, no wheezers allowed, especially when I take three meds twice a day so I can breath. :(

How you liking Osaka? When I was on that side of the world I was a happy little 11B, sleeping in the mud and rocks up near Camp Sears.:cool:

Osaka's a great city. Biggest Korean population in Japan, so we get real kim chee (among other things).

You want to hear funny? All those years I hated running. I was in the Old Guard in DC for a bit and I ran 8 miles every day before PT there (it was pretty). I always comlpained that I never really felt strong--people thought I was crazy and I couldn't quite explain what I meant. It was like I wasn't getting enough oxygen in my lungs. I went to the hospital several times asking about it. Not once did those idiots run any tests on me.

I got out and found out I have asthma LoL! I use advair twice a day now :D \


I had an internet friend in Osaka until recently--he just got out of the Marines. I think he was fleet security.

oh yeah...(Infantry, Photojournalsit, then Intelligence)

You want to hear funny? All those years I hated running. I was in the Old Guard in DC for a bit and I ran 8 miles every day before PT there (it was pretty). I always comlpained that I never really felt strong--people thought I was crazy and I couldn't quite explain what I meant. It was like I wasn't getting enough oxygen in my lungs. I went to the hospital several times asking about it. Not once did those idiots run any tests on me.

I got out and found out I have asthma LoL! I use advair twice a day now :D \

Heheh.

[QUOTE=Rooseveldt]I had an internet friend in Osaka until recently--he just got out of the Marines. I think he was fleet security.

Why to the Jarheads all seem to choose Osaka? I know one sailor, one soldier, and a whole bunch of Marines back "home" in Osaka (I'm stateside for the hiolidays at the moment).

oh yeah...(Infantry, Photojournalsit, then Intelligence)

Knew 11B and 35, had to look up 46q.

Off to dinner - after little bits of meat back in Japan, it's been 4 straight nights of large hunks of meat! :D And tonight mom wants fish? (>.<)

Wooo HOOO! COWBURGERS!

hey that is a good idea. I am grilling burgers tonite!