Posted on 10/17/2005 7:53:36 AM PDT by posey2004
Washington -- "Armies are fragile institutions and, for all their might, easily broken." Remember those words? They were written here, in this column, at the end of September 2003. I laid out the recipe for how to break a magnificent Army that had taken nearly two decades to rebuild itself in the wake of the Vietnam debacle.
In that early fall two years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was still running victory laps and the words of his boss, President George W. Bush, were still ringing: "Bring `em on!"
Sadly, those two were, and still are, in charge.
Now they've broken the Army, and after this administration is history, it will take 12 or 15 or 20 years to repair the damage it's inflicted on an institution that our country desperately needs in a century as dangerous as this one......................................
What standards have been lowered? My understanding is that the standards have remained the same (except for the age requirements), but that more effort has been made to effectively train recruits by using more trainers. And from what I have read, the end result of this is that retention numbers have increased.
The ugly truth is, this is the closest thing to a real war (as far as being ongoing) we've had since we've had an all-volunteer army...and it's still not remotely as bloody Viet Nam, WWII, etc.
I'm sure it's harder to recruit for war than it was for a job training program (which was how the Army was selling itself in the 90's). I looked into the Reserves and different flavors of ROTC when I was graduating high school and they all worked very hard to tell you that YOU wouldn't be the one fighting in the unlikely event of a war. YOU would be living in a 3 star hotel with roomservice while those other schmucks went and actually worked.
That's kinda hard to sell these days (regardless of who the President is)...the news shows otherwise. It's not like we can tell the terrorsts to please go away. We're not in the mood for war right now.
Galloway does not sound like a team member. Kind of a twisted view of military affairs.
BTTT - and sometimes very well-educated is a synonym for 'lacking in common sense'.
And that is the nub of it...we are in 'uncharted waters'.
If the exit strategy of getting the Iraqis to shoulder their own security problems works, then History will vindicate Bush & Rumsfeld even if the Media won't.
I believe he was the military journalist who was at the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley in Vietnam. He was played by Barry Pepper in the Mel Gibson movie "We Were Soldiers" and was co-author of the book that the movie was based on.
Let's keep the 'broken army', it looks like it works.
Tell you what... I'll take this army, and you can have any other army in the world that you choose. Who do you suppose would win?
My son is currently in basic training. I understand they have added some special forces training into the basic training as well. From what I hear from my son, they are training hard.
Again, I respect the military, I just do not think we should lower the bar to meet recruiting goals.
I post one thing that is worrisome, and I get jumped for it.
Calm down.
Actually, nearly 1 million Armed Forces personnel have rotated through Iraq and are somewhat combat hardened. While every loss is tragic, there are quite a few non-coms that have seen battle first hand. They form the spine of our military and this experience should prove invaluable if we face a tougher adversary.
Eeerr...
I think you forgot the (barfbag alert) tag
I am not jumping you at all. I am just saying that just to get in you have to pass certain apptitude tests both written and physically. Once you get into basic training, you are talking a different tune. If you cant keep up with the training, you will not complete the training. Basic training is HARD CORE training and it separates the men from the boys. They may lower the bar for meps, but once you get in you have to be able to hold your own.
I entered the Marine Corps in 1980 with a high school diploma I could have joined without it. After making it through the Clinton draw down years I got my degree and retired as a GySgt. Recruitment standards don't and won't break the Military because there is always opportunity for people to grow and learn in the Military, but cutting the man power will destroy it.(As Clinton did).
PS. My Honorable Discharge has his name (CLINTON) on it so I whited it out.
Thanks for the info.
That article says they've changed the rules to allow more people to apply. But it doesn't say that the training has been changed. If people can pass the tests and get through the training, how does that constitute lowering standards. By that rationale, raising the age limits constitutes the lowering of standards even though the older recruits are able to pass the exact same tests and training standards that younger recruits are required to pass.
Look at enlistment goals? Look at re-enlistment goals?
What it the main difference? The influence of the MSM!
The Army is so fragile we dare not use it, says this writer...
Please. The only thing wrong with this army is that it is undersized. But enlistments are strong, especially when you consider that everyone, everyone, enlisting right now knows they are going into combat.
Re-enlistments are strong, which is significant when you consider that all of them have done at least one tour, sometimes three, and are reenlisting knowing full well they will be sent back into combat.
An army exists to be used, or it is just another welfare program. These guys aren't in the army because they have nowhere else to go, they are in the army because they chose it, because they believe in what they are doing.
The whole force is going through changes, but that happens everytime we have a war. The new enemy and the new circumstances force changes in the system. Artillery isn't much help in urban combat, for example, so artillerymen have been retreaded for door-kicking. If you trained for artillery, that may irritate you. But things have a way of changing, and the next time out it will be your skills that are in demand. Rumsfeld has built a very flexible force, and he has done it in spite of very tight political and budget restraints.
You can complain about the restraints, but Congress has to deal with those. In the meantime, the guys are doing us proud.
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.