Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: armordog99

Priorities are the problem. Land based units do not have the support that the fly boys have. An armored infantry unit is the bulwark in Iraq but unimportant in the scale of the super power. The power to punish is more highly regarded than the power to control. With the upper echelon in the Pentagon being oriented to air power, the land forces have been allowed to deteriorate in numbers. This cannot last for long. The numbers of guard and reserves opting out should be a wake-up call. Stop-loss orders and extensions of time in service are just adding to the problem.


58 posted on 09/19/2004 12:55:52 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: meenie

And strategically - we are also seeing a loss in ship numbers which reduces our sealift capabilities for supporting these type of operations, but just as important reduces our capability to respond to both large and small problems elsewhere in the world.

As I see it we need to make up our mind - either commit to policing the world or get out of it all together. My personal vote is to maintain only two overseas bases with a combined naval CAG and Marine MEU. Everything else is then wrapping stateside tight - and ready to lay the wrath of god on anyone who messes with us. I think it would have two effects. 1) It will wake everyone else up to their need to support their own defense and 2) it will wake up the huge mega-corporations who are often expecting the US military to insure their investments are safe from seizure.


62 posted on 09/19/2004 1:05:09 AM PDT by reed13k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson