Posted on 01/26/2006 6:51:15 AM PST by xzins
Top U.S. General Says Army 'Stretched' By NICK WADHAMS ASSOCIATED PRESS
DIWANIYAH, Iraq (AP) -
The top U.S. general in Iraq acknowledged Thursday that American forces in this country are "stretched," but he said he will only recommend withdrawals based on operational needs.
Gen. George Casey told reporters he had discussed the issue with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker on Wednesday and that the Army chief of staff believes he can still sustain the mission in Iraq.
"The forces are stretched ... and I don't think there's any question of that," Casey said. "But the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more ready units."
He reiterated he would only recommend reductions in the more than 130,000-strong U.S. military presence in Iraq based on the situation on the ground.
On Tuesday, The Associated Press reported that an unreleased study conducted for the Pentagon said the Army was being overextended because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and may not be able to retain and recruit enough troops to defeat the insurgency in Iraq.
A day later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld disputed that, asserting that "the force is not broken."
Casey spoke after attending a ceremony in which Polish troops transferred leadership of the south-central region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, the first such handover since the war began in 2003. He rejected the idea that early troop withdrawals came because of strain on the military.
"That's not true, and the recommendation to begin the reduction of forces came from me based on our strategy here in Iraq," Casey said. "I made my decision based on operational reasons and I'll continue to do that. As I've said all along, I will ask for what I need to accomplish this mission."
--
precisely
I sense that Casey HAD to speak the truth about the Army. It's been rode hard and put away wet since before Casey took the 1st Armd Div to Kosovo.
If he had said something that all the troops knew was political correctness, then he would have instantly lost credibility in the eyes of his own soldiers.
Rumsfeld's a politician, and everyone knows his job is to say things that are politically palatable.
You don't perceive the words "the army is stretched" and the "army is not stretched" as being a bit different?
Yes there is a difference between stretched and not stretched. But stretched is not broken!
Could have fooled me.
From the Army.mil website:
From Congressman Edwards of Texas, Aug 2001: The Army currently has 10 active duty divisions, down from 18 divisions a decade ago. Press reports have indicated that the Defense Department is seriously contemplating a cut of two active Army divisions, and two to four of the eight Army National Guard divisions.
Nobody has said that stretched means broken.
However, if every 2 or 3 years any husband has to be separated from a young family for a year at a time, then there are going to be problems that must be addressed.
Maybe the Army can require that soldiers not be married.
If the army had wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one. :>)
Rumsfeld said it is "not broken."
Q Mr. Secretary, may I continue on along much the same line? There's another report on the table, one ostensibly ordered by the Defense Department and prepared by a retired military officer, which refers to a thin green line and says the Army is stretched so thin it's close to breaking. But the bottom line of this report, as I read it, is that the OPTEMPO (Operations Tempo) is so severe and so demanding on particularly the Army now in Iraq and Afghanistan that if we continue at this current OPTEMPO, we cannot outlast the insurgents. Can I get your specific reaction to that, please?SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, it's just not consistent with the facts. I just came from the White House, where the president was meeting with eight or 10, 15 senators. And Pete Schoomaker was with me, and someone asked that question. And Pete Schoomaker's answer was that it's just not correct; that he's seen a broken Army, he knows what a broken Army looks like, in the post-Vietnam period. There's no question but that during the period of the '90s, a number of aspects of the U.S. armed forces were underfunded and there were hollow pieces to it. Today that's just simply not the case. Close to breaking is -- only someone -- I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking. That's just not the case.
Yes, he can plausibly say that he did not address the word "stretch."
This was your original comment with which I disagreed. Instead of discussing the article upon which your comment is based, you are wandering off into the wilderness.
I am disappointed.
Did you read #28?
I said that Rumsfeld could say that he didn't address the stretch word that was part of the question. Casey did address the stretch word.
It appeared to my memory that the stretch question had been addressed by Rumsfeld. I could still make a case for it, but it wouldn't be a certain case.
In terms of George Casey, he's not a politician. He's too busy being a general.
My point was and still is that I could not reach the same conclusion as you had after reading the posted article and nothing else.
As the youngsters around here say, "are we cool?" :-)
Naval Expeditionary Combat Command
How soon is next year?
The unit “is not about a naval infantry,” said Fleet Forces Commander Adm. John B. Nathman. Infantry will continue to be handled by the Marines, with Navy forces following, he said.
Good find.
With the caveat mentioned above by the navy itself, and the fact that it appears this accounts for only 7000 troops....
I stand corrected.
Stretched does not mean broken.
A lot of soldiers are having to suck it up and drive on. A lot of them can do that, and take pride in their ability to do so. Some of them can't, or their spouses can't, and they will be getting out first chance they get and will have to be replaced.
How do we know when our Army is broken?
How do we know when our Army is broken?
My standard would be the loss of middle managers....those commissioned and enlisted soldiers from their 8th to 14th year. They are the present doer-leadership and the future upper leadership.
When they begin to leave in droves, then we will have finally worn them (or their families) out.
If they stay, then we have kept a great army intact. It sounds mercenary, maybe, but I think that financial reward is a compensation that spouses understand.
I would make our middle management at both the enlisted and commissioned levels extremely well paid. I'd have the enlisted (Sr E-5, E-6, E-7) and the commissioned (Sr O-3, 04, 05)at the 50-60 grand and 85-100 grand pay level.
I'd change the retirement system to provide guaranteed retirement vesting of 2% per year once a soldier reaches the 10th year.
I think they will stick to upping the bonuses instead of permanent pay grade raises. The bonuses can be taken away when the war is over.
Depending on the quality of issue, enlistment could really skyrocket.
Casey may well be a straight shooter but he reports to someone above him - thats his duty, he has no business being contraversial.
He is way off base to provide grist for the Democrats mill.
The problem with many of our generals is that they're taught to be straight shooters....some really don't ever learn he subtle art of politics. That's one reason, I think, that Tommy Franks was so quiet.
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.