Posted on 10/17/2004 2:52:58 PM PDT by Buddy B
I have done a lot of reading over the years on different aspects of our military preparedness, but I wouldn't classify myself as an expert. I try to apply logic to overall trends, considering articles I've read on a variety of topics, that impact our future military needs. What is appropriate? Are we using good judgement? Are we committing mistakes that others have made in the past?
On one hand, I'm not sure we have enough troops and have wondered why we don't increase the number in each branch of the military (or perhaps the Army & Marines for a ground war). On the other hand, I know we have a lot of troops in countries that we're moving (Germany as an example). Do you think we need to add to the number we currently allot for each branch, move troops from other areas, and/or both?
After reading article after article that addresses our difficulties in posting adequate troops to fulfill our military needs in Iraq, I have to come down on the side that we have underfunded, undermanned, underequiped and undersupplied our military. This isn't intended as a slam against Bush, except with regard to his commission's assessment that a one theater preparedness strategy was preferable. Bill Clinton is the president that allowed our military to slip to the point that a one theater preparedness was about all that was viable.
Right now we have opertations in Afghanistan and Iraq. I still consider this one theater of operation, even though you could probably make the case that it is somewhat in excess of one theater. For all intents, we're having a problem manning these operations.
That's not to say that our troops aren't top notch. It's just addressing the fact that they are stretched too thin.
A lot of people lament the fact that we have troops in Japan, Korea and Germany. I do not. These forward positions are positions that would be hard to reinstall once they were withdrawn. These bases are utilized more than, or are more stretegicly necessary than many people give them credit for.
If the U.S. didn't have a large presence in that theater, North Korea would have probably initiated hostilities long before this. If the U.S. didn't have it's base in Germany, we would not have medical facilies as close to the middle east as we do. I value these bases, even at this late date.
As for which branches of the military should be increased, I would rather leave that to the Department of Defense. There will always be a need for large numbers of ground troops. We are never going to have a more wide open space type of war, than in Iraq. Even there, we find it difficult to interrupt the movements of terrorists even with the incredible technological advances that we've utilized there. I also believe that our Navy should be kept in the 450 ship range rather than sub 300. I believe our carrier taskforces should be kept between seven and ten rather than five or six.
While I support a two-theater level of preparedness, I do believe we might face a temporary third theater at times. We need to be ready prior to that, not in a reactive mode. If we plan on reactive modes, the burden of elevated casualties and extreme hardship will rest on our troops. That is NOT an acceptable strategy for me.
I'm not so much quibeling over the exact number of troops we have on the ground in Iraq right now. I do think better rotations would keep the troops more refreshed and better capable of coping and fighting the fight in Iraq. If we needed to inject another 50,000 troops for a short period of time, it would be much easier.
I remember hearing we needed to be able to fight 2 wars at the same time - - -but can we do that. I also know that there is a "Plan" for our military to be lighter and more streamline & agile (I thought this meant the equipment as much or more than the troops, though I see that they could go hand in hand).
I do believe that we have made major strides in technology and rapid deployments to a certain extent. While these are nice, they are only the first steps in major operations. Of course the technology would extend into the larger overall operation as campaigns developed, but the rapid deployments troops would be augmented by ground troops. Yes, we can win wars very quickly, as in Iraq, but keeping the peace while mop-ups and new governments become viable, takes time. We're never going to eliminate the need for this. Kidding ourselves that rapid deployments are going to eliminate the dirty grunt work for a few years is just dilusional IMO.
If we do not have a two or two plus theater force, what happens when we mire down in places like Iraq? Well, our hands are tied until we can extricate ourselves. And this would likely mean comprimises having to be made that might undo all our hard work to that point.
We may have to go into North Korea. We may need to back up our allies elsewhere? Planning for these contingencies in advance is essential IMO. Not only does it prepare us for times when we need those contingencies, it lengthens the periods between our having to utilize them.
As I said, I'm not an expert. I try to think strategicly, but that doesn't mean there aren't other oppinions out there, and that some of them might not be better than my own. Take it for what it is.
A Seattle Conservative... I'll be it gets lonely up there.
How long did the troops who went ashore in North Africa in 1942 get "held over"?
Want volunteers? What about the Texas National Guard unit sent to Java in 1941 (36th ID) or the New Mexico Guardsmen sent to the Philippines.
My only expressed complaints about Iraq have been that we have shown excessive concern for collateral damages. Insurgents holed up in a Mosque? Level it.
No, there is no comparison to the service those guys were asked to provide. I agree.
We are in a global war at this time, but the number of theaters is far less. We have large numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that it's an example of poor planning when we can't rotate people out regularly on this level of operations.
If we were involved in two plus theaters at this time, and straining to react to our global committments having planned ahead reasonably, I'd sign on to your logic in a second. The fact is, this operation as large as it is, is just too damned small for us to be in this position.
Thanks for the comment.
A Seattle Conservative... I'll be it gets lonely up there.
You have no idea! Luckily some of my family members are conservative, so at least I have a few people to bounce my thoughts and gripes off of - - and now I have the Freepers :-) - You all are great! (I'm only a newbie of a few weeks - but have enjoyed reading and participating in the posts!)
This was a very thoughtful response - thanks very much, DoughtyOne, much appreciated!
I have always thought (of course, without evidence to support this position) that the results in Viet Nam would have been far different if the troops had been told there was no countdown on a one year tour, but that they would stay (with brief R&R breaks) until they won the war.
That's a topic I've wavered on to a certain extent. There have been times when I felt pretty much the same way as you, but I've had to force myself to be logical about it. And that's reasonably logical I hope. Avoiding confrontations or necessary hostilities inappropriately is something to be avoided at all cost.
The United States exists in an unparalleled situtation in the history of the world. It has the power to crush militarily any nation on the planet. With several it would pay a price that was too heavy in order to do so. Others are essentially defenseless against us.
Once Iraq fell, we could have inhialated any Iraqi resitance with devistating violence. In some situations that is entirely appropriate. In others we have to think strategicly.
Yes we could have blown up that Mosque. We would have neded that mess in a couple of days. And while we would have sent chills through the spines of terrorists everywhere, we would also have sent chills throught the spines of the Iraqi populace at large.
We are about eighteen months into this effort. We have much of the Iraqi population behind us. The Iraqi government is shaping up nicely. They are taking control of their country through newly trained defense forces, that are augmenting our own troops.
Ultimatums are being levied by the Iraqi government today. The United States may be urging the Iraqi government to take that action, but places like Sumarra and Fallujah are being cleaned up.
I believe it was probably wise to avoid destroying the mosque. Sadyr and his crew have been marginalized for the most part. Other clerics have not come to his rescue. It's impossible for anyone to demonize the U.S. for having destroyed a cleric and a mosque.
I don't necessarility like the way we had to do this, but I am willing to accept that in this cooler heads may have been right.
Thank you too. It's been nice talking to you.
In Vietnam, we conducted a very strange war.
Why didn't we take out Hanoi's leadership? Whe didn't we warn Hanoi citizens to depart the city, and then level it? Why didn't we pick other cities one by ond and just utterly destroy the north?
We could have won that war in a couple of years or less. We tried to play by Marques of Queensburry rules and proved once and for all, that when it comes to war, it's destroy or be destroyed.
We lost 55,000 troops. Johnson and McNamara should have been strung up. McCarthy would have had a hay day going after communists in the 60s and 70s.
We'd have a lot more sound nation today if he had.
Thanks again.
You take care.
I can't find anything to disagree with in your post 48. That is what perhaps colors my bias against trying to fight a 'nice' war against irregulars. Perhaps Iraq is being handled correctly, and time will prove the wisdom of those who are directing it(I hope so).
"Intelligence blunder, maybe. Political blunder, hardly. There's a whole laundry list of people who claimed WMDs existence in Iraq, including Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Edwards."
Yeah, though for the US as a whole entity it is a big deal, any US claim of other problems will find very few other governments willing to stick their necks out and join up a coalition.
Yes, I think we both have mixed emotions about not fighting with all our might at every moment. Perhaps we will see the wisdom of how we handled the mosques, or perhaps it will once again prove that you never give the enemy any quarter.
Fighting for your own land is a lot easier to moralize over, than fighting for someone else's land. Were this campaign carried out in our own nation, the black and white of it would be a lot easier to judge.
Trying to take into consideration the culture of the people you are trying to liberate, is a very tricky situation. Allienating that population base, is something you try to avoid if at all possible.
You take care.
Careful - with that Boeing background they'll want you to mount hardpoints on that sucker!
.....Westy.....
LOL Gives a whole new meaning to coming in "low-and-slow".
Don't let them get you to compromise on the rain cover - comfort is not negotiable the second time around.
If he served his country honorably for 35 years in a low paid profession I say let him double dip all he wants.
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.