Posted on 10/03/2006 1:19:26 PM PDT by jmc1969
The Iraq war has left the United States military in critical condition, stretched beyond its limits in manpower and equipment and in danger of "breaking," a retired U.S. Army general said here today.
"The United States Army is stumbling toward the edge of a cliff. It’s starting to unravel," said Gen. Barry McCaffrey, speaking at a homeland defense symposium.
"It has about $61 billion in equipment shortages. It has a $50 billion shortfall in the vital equipment and parts you need to run a war," said the former commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command and former drug czar under President Bill Clinton.
The Army’s 14 brigades now deployed in Iraq have their full complement of troops with competent leadership, said McCaffrey, but "the other two-thirds of the Army’s combat brigades are not ready to fight."
McCaffrey said the Army has been fighting on "World War II footing" since 9-11, straining its capacity.
McCaffrey said the blame falls not only on the Bush Administration, but also on Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to raise and fund the armed forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
Wasn't it McCaffrey who claimed under Clinton that the US military could fight two major wars at once?
Ok, this statement alone tells me he's full of it. The U.S. isn't close to fighting on WW2 footing.
Don't know whether to take the general at his word or with a healthy dose of skepticism......
I think he's been listening to Murtha!
The current Army Chief said that his branch needs a lot more money than what has been budgeted.
Amazing really. The recruitment is ahead of schedule, military spending is robust, technology continues to improve and the general thinks it is about to break?
This suggestion alone is absurd. We are no where near the standing army of WW II and haven't been for decades.
Gee how many times is this nonsense going to be posted? This is like the 4th time they tried to circulate this lie.
You can read the data here. McCafferty is merely screaming what his Democrat Party Masters told him to say.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm
Funny how this broken Army made both their retention and recuritment rates for the exapanding force. Why is that General?
I think so...and he is also Sissy Chrissy Matthew's butt boy.
This is more of the Dem October full-press. The MSM today is full of anti-Republican rants and this is just another.
Think maybe the Defeatocrats are getting nervous?
I thought McCaffrey was once accused by Seymour Hersh of being a war criminal for ordering an attack on retreating Iraqi Army forces in the first Gulf War in 1991.
Today's installment of the Democrats' "The liberation of Iraq is the worst thing to ever happen to America and the world" daily talking point. What will tomorrow's be? The Iraq war causes AIDs? The Iraq war is directly to blame for the Amish school shooting? The Iraq war caused Mark Foley to go trolling for under-aged boys? This is just getting so old and boring. Democrats should learn the principle of overkill and how it causes people to just tune out their daily propaganda spewings.
Clinton war room in action.
In releated news, Chester O'Brian, who retired from the IBM mainframe group a few years back announced that "this Internet thing will never catch on". Former little rich kid Al Gore who was in Congress, was vice-president and ran for president was asked to comment on this but was unavailable. A Gore spokeperson said "the former vice-president was last seen spraying on new hair then running in to the woods after manbearpig".
This is pure treason. He is trying to demoralize the military to help pile on to the Dem's October suprises.
Boy. The retired left wing arm chair generals are all coming out of the closet for their 15 minutes of fame lately, aren't they? Who's offering them "rewards" for dissing the U.S, anyway? How much are they getting paid for this?
Maybe he thinks the Army is still being run the way he ran his part.
McCaffery was a Clinton favorite. Wesley Clark was a Clinton favorite.
True, in private. Once the budget is set he's supposed to be the good soldier and take what's given him. For the Army Chief of Staff to publicly defy the Secretary of Defense and refuse to submit a budget within the guidelines he set is unheard of.
McCaffrey is a tool...
...of the Democrats.
This was refuted very well more than a month ago by the joint chiefs in their senate hearings, played on CSPAN.
It's Murtha's talking points.
I'm like you. But I lean toward skepticism.
Too many generals have become "political" and hastened to the podium to publicly recite a mantra of defeat and dismay for me to take them at their word. McCaffrey sounds too much like Murtha to be taken seriously.
LOL!
"The Iraq war has left the United States military in critical condition, stretched beyond its limits in manpower and equipment and in danger of "breaking," a retired U.S. Army general said here today."
I'll bet the Commanders of the active army just love to hear these old, retired officers spouting off for fame and glory - well, 15 minutes of it, anyway.
Sort of like Jimmy Carter. You wonder what kind of officers these geezers were when they were on active duty.
I think McCaffrey is right and I'm not a lefty. I've been watching the Army for several years. Most of the equipment in Iraq now is junk and will have to be replaced. The Army has canabalized its resources and has several shortages of equipment and personnel in virtually all locations other than Iraq. I'm sure that the moral of the troops is high despite the shortages, but it will eventually take its toll. Rumsfeld has restructured the Army into something which may be ok for Iraq, but is ill suited for other challenges we face. We are not ready for any challenge from the 3 million man army of China or even a serious challenge from Kim Jong Il. Rumsfeld's distortions of both the Army and Navy in order to fight a war on the cheap will have great consequences in the near future.
Ok, this statement alone tells me he's full of it. The U.S. isn't close to fighting on WW2 footing.
I couldn't agree more. In WWII, a soldier went overseas...and stayed overseas until the war was over, and then some. Today, soldiers spend much more time stateside than overseas, given the rotation schedules. And don't forget that the number of active Army divisions was reduced from 18 to 10 under Clinton's watch.
If you investigate, you’ll find that GEN McCaffrey has been spending a lot of time in Iraq with everyone from senior leadership to the troops. He has written several cogent and complimentary pieces on the conduct of the Iraq war. If you read the article carefully, he is telling the truth and furthermore echoing what the CSA is saying publicly. GEN McCaffrey did not say that the US was near to breaking or even that the US military is breaking. He said, correctly, that the ARMY is in danger if there is another significant challenge. The U.S. ARMY and USMC have gone to war, and the rest of the country has gone to……the mall. The CSA is saying that the ARMY needs more money, but not at the expense of the USN or USAF. The DoD budget needs to expand. For those who would scoff at this, look at the percentage of GDP that we spend now on defense vice social programs. The percentages have flipped flopped since the early 60s. Concurrently, he also correctly assesses that it is time for the Departments of State, Commerce, Justice, Treasury etc. to get off their ass and start helping. To use an analogy, they are the offense with the mission of rebuilding Iraq while the land forces are the defense. Just like in football, you can’t leave the defense on the field in perpetuity – eventually the “D” wears down and the other side gets lucky.
Overseas? Yes. In actual combat zones on a daily basis? No! Some troops in Iraq are on third deployments and most of Iraq can be considered hostile territory.
There is a very big difference between being stationed on foreign soil in a safe zone and being in a combat area 12 plus months twice possibly three times your enlistment because Da Great minds forgot to plan for across the board increases in permanent active duty troops. The Special Forces are catching the brunt of it. Their rotations would be shorter and deployments longer.
Typically when bureaucrats want more money, or want to keep the money they are budgeted, they use a simple principle:
"Cut the meat and keep the fat."
Say for example, you threaten to cut the Pentagon's budget by $1. Their response is to say that $1 has to come from our national ballistic missile program, therefore we have to scrap our entire ballistic missile program.
Ridiculous, I know. And so do they. But imagine how many members of Congress would be willing to stand for such a threat? That is, that *Congress* scrapped our entire ballistic missile program with their "reckless and foolhardy" Pentagon budget cuts.
So before anything else, if you offer the Pentagon another $100 BILLION dollars, FIRST ask them what they would do with the money BEFORE you give it to them.
Would they use it to buy new equipment for ground units or increase recruiting? No. Probably not. That's probably already been budgeted, or it is not a critical issue.
They would want to use it to buy some more hyper-expensive aircraft or $300M DD(X) Cruisers (Destroyers). And screw the spare parts and manpower shortages.
It's a matter of priorities, and how can you fool 'em today?
Correct. I intentionally omitted that aspect of overseas deployment.
Speaking of "big differnces," there is big difference between R&R overseas and R&R stateside with family. Are you supporting McCaffrey's assertion that the US Army is on a "World War II footing"?
Certainly the Army is on a war footing, but in general, the country isn't. There is no great sacrifice by the average Joe in this country, save for the poor bastard in Iraq. I think Rangel was right, War should have been declared and the draft reinstituted if we were serious about fighting that war. I'll bet every general now would admit that he could use the troops if he had them, but he's not asking for them because he knows that there isn't any more to ask for and it would be impolitic for his career to ask for them.
I think the whole defense system is. But I was saying this when Clinton was in office. Over deployment in Gulf War one cost us at least one carrier that by Naval Protocols on maintenance should still be in service today. It had a boiler room explosion in March 1994 after it's third consecutive deployment to the MED/IO in as many years without maintenance. Thankfully there were no personnel causalities as it very well could have. The military was in trouble pre-9/11. The problems especially Navy wise immediately says readiness was still an issue and it wasn't at command levels on the ships but rather in the Pentagon and DOD itself. They were issues the Captain of the ships had no say over.
IMO nothing can replace a standing ready active duty military as our primary defense. That means having sufficient numbers to fight two hemispheres at the same time. I have a bad feeling when this starts to wind down we're gonna see some major PTSS or PTSD and behavioral issues in the enlisted Special Forces. The mind needs down time to deal with carnage. These guys are seeing too much in too short a period of time. There was already starting to be such issues before the Gulf War. When the stress is taken off watch out.
I'm pro-defense but I do not agree with much of todays policies. I see the need for a modernized military that is essential but you can not run what you have to death and pretend all is well. That includes both troops and equipment in all services. Congress needs to stop the over use of reserves especially in the National Guards. They along with private armed citizens are true Homeland Security. Leave their missions local in scope but train them for all possibilities. How could my former NG unit guard DOD plants in my area if we had came under regional attack if they were deployed in Iraq? I am talking about the crown jewell DOD facilities BTW.
What about the troops we have in Germany, South Korea, Guam, Japan, the Philippines, Bosnia, and so on ? Are we rotating troops and equipment from those areas ?
We are down to one ARMY BDE in Korea that rotates its troops on individual one year tours, (the other redeployed to CONUS via a year in Iraq and is slated to return to Iraq shortly), the Germany units have been in the rotation from the beginning, there are no ARMY Brigades in Guam, Japan, or the Philipines, and Bosnia is a token National Guard force holding the lid on things there. The USMC is in a similiar situation. We've done dug right through the bottom of the barrel. The paradigm has to break, not shift, if we get hit with another major land crisis. Not all units can do each other's job. The question is not about how many 11B10s you can get for an F-22, but instead how many you can get for a medicare benefit, or for re-building NOLA's lower ninth slum.
We were facing a 50 billion equipment shortage all through the 90s. The military is always short equipment/parts. The government should start a bond drive where every penny goes to the pentagon budget - more pay, more stuff. Do that or stick a $5-10 dollar tax on every barrel of imported oil.
In the short run it would be a lot cheaper to train another 100,000 Iraqis and add them to the existing force and support them with a smaller coalition force with air assets. But what Iraq really needs is a serious internal security service that has informants on every block, in every community, in every town and city.
His comments, as translated by you rather than the Rocky Mountain News, make considerably more sense and warrant my support.
I would certainly favor increased spending on the Army -- so long as it not for inappropriate hardware like the Crusader (a name that, given today's enemy, I would love to see applied to a more mobile and useful system).
What I voiced about many retired Generals, though, still stands.
"military spending is robust"
Wish I was seeing some of it. The reality is that we aren't spending anywhere near enough for what we are trying to do. There is no money for training or exercises, and manning has been slashed. The unit I'm in (USAF) is well below 50% manned.
I don't like McCaffrey, but he's right. The wars we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are not fully funded, so the difference is coming out of training and manning. I tend to think we're approaching a hollow force, but many I talk to think we're already there.
We are overextended for what we are trying to do. DoD refuses to ask for a significant plus up because they don't want to admit we face years of work. They want to pretend we can get the job done 'any time now', which simply isn't true.
I'm USAF, my daughter was a Marine, her husband is a Marine, and my son is in the Army. The picture isn't pretty.
Worth repeating. Preach on!
I don't doubt WW2 was far worse. I had an uncle who spent 3 years in the Navy and was only on dry land a couple of months. But at least then we knew who the enemy was. Now the attack can come from a 10 year old kid who was smiling as you passed him by. That is a whole different ball game.
Ah, thanks. When you see the number of people in the Armed Services and know that only about 140,000 (or whatever) are actually in Iraq, you wonder what the other 1 million (or whatever the exact number is) are doing.
You are welcome. Rough rule of thumb is that it takes 3-5 soldiers for everyone deployed. This just counts the rotation issue ( one in theater, one recovering, one preparing). Add in manning the training base, recruiting, school attendance, depots, hospitals etc. etc. and you run out of bubbas pretty quickly. Although the training base etc. is not a popular or particularly "cool" place to be, one ignores it at one's strategic peril. Look at how well the Japanese were able to train pilots at the end of WWII. Oh yeah, by the way, add in all the other places in the universe that need Soldiers and Marines (Horn of Africa, South America, Afganistan). Finally, norm this number against the skill sets in the force and those required for other contingencies. Bottom line: we're short. Sustainable in the short run - sure. But, as we go over the 5 year mark, this becomes not a short term thing. It's a long war - train, MAN, and equip the force for it!.
How does a retired general know what's going on, and even if he does, why is he blabbing about it?
how many units are actively engaged in fighting? how many airstrikes are we conducting? from reports I see, a very modest number. our guys are mostly doing police duty, driving around in convoys, that are unfortunately IED targets.
Haze gray and underway. I don't doubt WW2 was far worse one bit as far as actual battles air, land, and sea. We also had to fight much longer for two reasons. A post WW1 downturn and Pearl Harbor. Had we actually been ready? Who knows?
I got lucky my last year in the Navy. I had just under a year left when the ship went into year long dry dock/overhaul in 1979. The Navy didn't transfer ones who had a year or less to got to other ships. From Feb. 77- OCT 79 I did two MED SEA deployments averaging six and a half months each. That meant constant operations. We could pull into ports but never shut down as we had to anchor and remain operational on our own power. I also did a South America deployment. Add to that pre-deployment work ups we stayed gone quite a bit. It took about 7-9 months of sea trials going in and out of port mostly out to get ready for a 6 month deployment. When you got back you went into three months stand down in the yards for maintenance this included the nukes. That still meant 8 hour work days even in the yards and one night in 5 or 6 spent on the ship just in case.
Also the Carrier Piers in Norfolk up till the mid 1980's ?? could only berth 3 carriers. We were keeping a two carrier operation in the MED SEA 24/7/365 no excuse so 3 hardly ever were at the base anyway. Now I understand possibly 5 can be at NOB Norfolk at once but only a mad man would allow it to happen. I might be wrong it all depends on what the new pier can handle. That is one carrier short of 50% of the entire carrier force. If that new pier between 12 & 7 holds two carriers then it's possible to have 5 in a row. Pier 7 can only hold one carrier. Even 4 in the same base isn't wise. I tried to tell someone last night such actions puts us one Pearl Harbor away from disaster. The solution is sending two carriers to homeport in Mayport.
Next is we have gone from at one time 4 carrier capable builders to one. Guess where it is? We are one attack away from another Pearl Harbor. The overall defense downturn didn't simply shutter defense plants and bases they were tore down and sold. That's where Russia with an influx of M.E. dollars could get us. The facilities are still there. China & some M.E. nations are giving Russia defense business. With Russia's history she could go back to being under a dictatorship at any given time.
7 . National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.1588.ENR]
SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.
The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2004, as follows:
(1) The Army, 482,400.
(2) The Navy, 373,800. currently Active Duty: 381,135
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 359,300
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as of September 30, 2004, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 85,900.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 107,030.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 75,800.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.
Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of September 30, 2004, the following number of Reserves to be serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 25,599.
(2) The Army Reserve, 14,374.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 14,384.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 12,191.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 1,660.
SEC. 1012. ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO USE FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES OF VESSELS STRICKEN FROM NAVAL VESSEL REGISTER. (a) ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION- Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 7306a of title 10, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting `AND ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OF' in the subsection heading after `STRIPPING'; and (2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and such environmental remediation of the vessel as is required for the use of the vessel for experimental purposes'. (b) SALE OF MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT STRIPPED FROM VESSEL- Subsection (b) of such section is further amended-- (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph (2): `(2) Material and equipment stripped from a vessel under paragraph (1) may be sold by the contractor or by a sales agent approved by the Secretary.'; and (3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by striking `scrapping services' and all that follows through the end of such subsection and inserting `services needed for such stripping and for environmental remediation required for the use of the vessel for experimental purposes. Amounts received in excess of amounts needed for reimbursement of those costs shall be deposited into the account from which the stripping and environmental remediation expenses were incurred and shall be available for stripping and environmental remediation of other vessels to be used for experimental purposes.'. (c) CLARIFICATION OF COVERED EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: `(c) USE FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES DEFINED- In this section, the term `use for experimental purposes', with respect to a vessel, includes use of the vessel in a Navy sink exercise or for target purposes.'. SEC. 1013. TRANSFER OF VESSELS STRICKEN FROM THE NAVAL VESSEL REGISTER FOR USE AS ARTIFICIAL REEFS. (a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE TRANSFER- Chapter 633 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 7306a the following new section: `Sec. 7306b. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register: transfer by gift or otherwise for use as artificial reefs `(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE TRANSFER- The Secretary of the Navy may transfer, by gift or otherwise, any vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel Register to any State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, for use as provided in subsection (b). `(b) VESSEL TO BE USED AS ARTIFICIAL REEF- An agreement for the transfer of a vessel under subsection (a) shall require that-- `(1) the recipient use, site, construct, monitor, and manage the vessel only as an artificial reef in accordance with the requirements of the National Fishing Enhancement Act of 1984 (33 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.), except that the recipient may use the artificial reef to enhance diving opportunities if that use does not have an adverse effect on fishery resources (as that term is defined in section 2(14) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(14)); and `(2) the recipient obtain, and bear all responsibility for complying with, applicable Federal, State, interstate, and local permits for using, siting, constructing, monitoring, and managing the vessel as an artificial reef. `(c) PREPARATION OF VESSEL FOR USE AS ARTIFICIAL REEF- The Secretary shall ensure that the preparation of a vessel transferred under subsection (a) for use as an artificial reef is conducted in accordance with-- `(1) the environmental best management practices developed pursuant to section 3504(b) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314; 16 U.S.C. 1220 note); and `(2) any applicable environmental laws. `(d) COST SHARING- The Secretary may share with the recipient of a vessel transferred under subsection (a) any costs associated with transferring the vessel under that subsection, including costs of the preparation of the vessel under subsection (c). `(e) NO LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF VESSELS TRANSFERABLE TO PARTICULAR RECIPIENT- A State, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, may be the recipient of more than one vessel transferred under subsection (a). `(f) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS- The Secretary may require such additional terms and conditions in connection with a transfer authorized by subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate. `(g) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed to establish a preference for the use as artificial reefs of vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in lieu of other authorized uses of such vessels, including the domestic scrapping of such vessels, or other disposals of such vessels, under this chapter or other applicable authority.'. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 7306a the following new item: `7306b. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register: transfer by gift or otherwise for use as artificial reefs.'. SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.
The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty personnel as of September 30, 2002, as follows:
(1) The Army, 480,000.
(2) The Navy, 376,000.
(3) The Marine Corps, 172,600.
(4) The Air Force, 358,800.
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as of September 30, 2002, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 87,000.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,558.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 108,400.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 74,700.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000.
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) The House bill contained a provision (sec. 401) that would authorize end strengths for the active forces, as indicated in the table below: Service Fiscal year 1998-- Request Recommendation
Army 495,000 495,000
Navy 390,802 395,000
Marine Corps 174,000 174,000
Air Force 371,577 381,000
Total 1,431,379 1,445,000
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 401) that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1998, as shown below: Fiscal year-- 1997 authorization 1998 request 1998 recommendation
Army: 495,000 495,000 485,000
Navy: 407,318 390,802 390,802
Marine Corps: 174,000 174,000 174,000
Air Force: 381,000 371,577 371,577
The House recedes with an amendment that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1998 as shown below: Fiscal year-- 1997 authorization 1998 request 1998 authorization
Army 495,000 495,000 495,000
Navy 407,318 390,802 390,802
Marine Corps 174,000 174,000 174,000
Air Force 381,100 371,577 371,577
Total 1,457,418 1,431,379 1,431,379
1998 authorization for end strength active duty
Army 495,000
Navy 390,802
Marines 174,000
Air Force 371,577
1998 authorization for end strength reserves
ARNG 366,516
USAR 208,000
USNR 94,294
USMCR 42,000
ANG 107,377
USAFR 73,431
USCGR 8000
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.