About as much military experience as their fearless leader...
Posted on 09/30/2006 5:32:47 PM PDT by mathprof
Just remember that the bullet comes out of the skinny end and you'll do fine. Good flying and Godspeed.
Yes, and there's a big difference. Therefore, I'll never vote for a Dem. Won't be happy about voting for the GOP, but I'll do it.
Where were they during the Carter administration? I remember how decrepit our equipment was during my tour in Germany, and the lack of funds for spare parts and training. It was always a struggle to have 3/4 of our weapons systems operational, which was the minimum requirement.
The average soldier that was in my platoon/battery/battalion was just as good as they are today. In some ways, they were better, because they learned rapidly how to make do with less. Fortunately, far fewer marginal recruits are allowed to enlist today.
The most important statistic is reenlistment. That tells you if we are losing experienced NCOs, the backbone of our army.
During the current conflict, the reenlistment rates have never been low.
Therefore, I deem the NY Times article full of crap.
For example: If as few as one man in three have body armor, you just switch it around so that the high risk men wear the body armor, and the Fobbits (mix of Forward Operating Base and hobbits who never leave the Shire) don't get any.
The US Army came up with tactics to beat the fortified lines at Normandy, beat the hedgerow defenses, and beat the Tiger and Panther tanks with Shermans and Tank Destroyers. I have every confidence that the Army will defeat these jerks. And the Arab terrorists too.
The reason why we are not spending a bunch on legacy platforms is as follows.
1. Each update program has a overhead fixed cost, per update program. A new platform has the same overhead cost as each little update, and you get a lot more out of it.
2. The current legacy systems are completely capable of fighting little wars against third and 4th tier opponents. updates are not needed for that task.
3. The current legacy systems are not capable, with any package of updates you can name, against a first tier opponent. The new Air Force and Navy systems will be effective. (I don't have personal expertise on the current crop of new Army or Marine programs, and so withold judgement.)
Hope that clears it up.
Ah yes.."the brutal Afghan winter"...soon replaced by "the brutal Iraqi summer." The NYT wonders how we survive at all, in places without air conditioning.
And you don't think the Slimes has military experts on its staff...who could have figured this stuff out without the help of the Slimes?
Re-enlistment bonuses have had to be raised to record levels.
I've spent most of the last 1 1/2 years working acquisition for legacy platforms.
1 - No, a new pod doesn't have the same fixed cost as the F-22.
2 - We won't have enough 'new systems' to handle a war against a top tier opponent. No way in hell. That means we will have to use legacy systems. And it is far cheaper to upgrade 200+ legacy platforms than buy 40 F-22s.
3 - With commercially available upgrades, legacy fighters can be effective against top tier opponents. A lot depends on what you forcast the threats to be in 2020. I think the USAF has made a poor prediction in order to justify the F-22.
The USAF has sold its soul for the F-22. It has gutted any legacy upgrades, gutted strat airlift, and now it is gutting manpower - all to buy a limited number of aircraft.
If this were an either/or situation, I could chalk it up to a difference in opinion.
But it isn't an either/or situation. If you go to the American taxpayer, and ask if they are willing to spend what it takes for a first class military, the answer is a resounding YES. Our leaders, in the USAF & DoD, haven't done that - and they haven't because the WH doesn't want them to do so.
I've met too many Army guys with two tours and rising going back again this winter. My son-in-law expects to be sent on his third tour with the Marines this spring. I'll leave this winter on my first, but expect to go back again a year or so after I get back, because we're short handed and I have some unusual training.
About as much military experience as their fearless leader...
Reenlistment rates won't stay this high for long, even with the extremely high bonuses that are being paid. Bonuses that are sometimes many tens of thousands of dollars, tax free (when made in a hazardous fire zone). Even with those huge bonuses being dangled, many in highly skilled job areas are still opting out to work as contractors.
Enlistment rates won't stay this high for long, either, even though they've been dropping the standards drastically to make ends meet.
Yes, we are meeting the target numbers for both, but you should be made aware that the military is doing it's very best to paper over those numbers as long as it can.
It may be, as you say, that reenlistment rates will not be high for long.
The evidence is not here now, because the bonuses are doing their job. I am not a socialist, or an altruist, and figger the worker is worth his wage. You may differ, and that's ok.
Reenlistments rates are good, at president. The evidence cited does not make the case. Future evidence may, or may not make the case in the future.
As of right now, the story, as printed is bogus.
I wish all members of our armed forces good luck in their endeavors.
I have seen some of those same troops and agree with your assessment. But, the problems lie just beneath the surfase. Its becoming very tough to meet the 12 month minimum between deployments, unit have already deployed with less. 12 month tours are also hard to sustain, many units have been extended. New units have been hard pressed to get both people and equipment delivered on time to support required training. No one is training on their basic warfighting tasks, there simply isn't time. They are working the priority, which to to be trained and ready for their GWOT mission.
We have a superb Army, the very best that has existed in my lifetime. It is, however, on the ragged edge. Without some relief, the force will begin to crack. Won't happen this year, probably not next year. High risk that it will happen in the future, especially if the politicians bail out on them like they did in 73.
I doubt that you will find many at all that don't agree deployments are coming too often and too quickly, but they are far more accepting of the situation then everyone else seems to be. It might be very disappointing to some people but overall they're pretty well adjusted...no ragged edge or problems beneath the surface.
Exactly. Rumsfeld has done some great things, but one of the truly tragic things he has done is to avoid pushing for more appropriate troops strength. However, with our current deployment rules, it's easy to see why the Administration might have gone for lower numbers to have greater staying power...but we shouldn't have to make that choice.
Still, this is a failure of planning, to have so few active duty troops. The GWOT, and related wars, will be manpower intensive.
Yes, and also, we need to involve the whole country, not just the military.
It would be discussed more, but people fear the political impact of talking about the Administration's military mismanagement.
It's not only that...it's encouraging to an enemy to have us admit these problems, and I wouldn't want to post this other than the fact that we're past the point of keeping up that illusion. It's obvious now that action is required.
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.