Posted on 11/19/2006 12:25:57 AM PST by MinorityRepublican
The continuing deployment of US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan has diluted the pool of soldiers stationed throughout the world to dangerously thin proportions in some areas, according to experts, also resulting in a chronic dearth of military equipment both on the home front and at overseas posts.
The 140,000-plus US troops in Iraq and 30,000 or more stationed in Afghanistan have caused a drain on other long-time US military obligations abroad, such as South Korea, Japan and Germany, notes one military analyst.
Others point out that a systematic redeployment of US troops from the Korean Peninsula's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and other locales has been planned for several years.
Last month, ISN Security Watch reported on fatigue among enlisted personnel and troops - some of whom are on their third tour of duty in Iraq - and the waning morale among reservists and other part-time members of the military.
With some 350,000 troops stationed in approximately 120 countries, over 60 percent of the US Army is dedicated to active duty. Currently, the US military is enacting a "one in three" policy in which active duty soldiers must serve one year abroad for every three years of duty.
Meanwhile, the ongoing conflicts have led some to believe that the US military is at a "tipping point" that could lead to serious shortcomings regarding its "ability to field sufficient forces of a high level of quality and equipment that ensures our security," according to a soon-to-be released report by the Washington think-tank The Brookings Institution, obtained in advance by ISN Security Watch.
The report notes gaps in the demand for new equipment and the supply available to forces on the front lines. Several experts note that those shortcomings often are filled with supplies from other US posts throughout the world,
(Excerpt) Read more at isn.ethz.ch ...
South Korea, Japan, and Germany can take care of themselves.
This allegation has been refuted many times before. The US military is the largest and strongest military force in the world and has no equal opposite force anywhere.
We almost single-handedly won the Iraq war without Coalition forces and have resolutely kept other participating forces to a minimum. According to numerous military experts we are capable of waging war on many fronts and in many places simultaneously, if neccesary.
Liberals and peaceniks have long promulgated the notion that somehow the US is undermanned and spread too thin. This is absolute hogwash. Amateurs have no fundamental idea of how military organizations are run,organized and supported and rely on comic book notions of what military operations actually are.
This piece is just another fruitless attempt to undermine our efforts in Iraq and in the Middle East against the forces of world wide terror and comes as just another tired diatribe waged by spineless liberals to discredit our government,our leadership and our brave men and women defending our freedom around the world. It's pure unadulterated, Hate America enemy propaganda.
But then, what would you expect from someone who hates our President, our military, Don Rumsfeld and actually believes McCain would be a fit president?
Recommend you check out the size of both the Indian and Chinese armies. You might also look at the advanced equipment both have been purchasing over the last ten years. We have tremendous troops and operational capability, but as the old saying goes "quantity has a quality all of its own."
I question the "numerous military experts" on capability to wage war on many fronts. We have the national industrial and organizational capacity to do so, but it would take time to redevelop that capability since much of it went out the window when the "Peace Dividend" came in the door.
I guess it depends on what kind of wars you're talking about.
Thanks for that. On a man for man basis you are correct. I was referring to serious fully mechanized and supported organizations...not mere bodies in uniform.
No army anywhere comes even close.
Thank you.
Amen. Why we don't cut back those forces considerably is beyond me, especially when we have Guards and Reserves being required to endure second and third deployments to Iraq.
Makes no sense at all.
Weren't most of the cuts in the size of the military during Bush I's presidency?
Our industrial capacity has been outsourced to China.
Manufacturing is rarely taught in America's community colleges and State University's .
We'd be hard pressed to ramp up like in WW2 today.
They'd never consider the impact of Clinton's "peace dividend" cuts, would they?
I don't believe so.
Al Gore, while VP, kept crowing publicly about how he had "reinvented government" (remember that?) and was reducing the size of government.
The deceit in his statement was that he was counting military attrition (retirements, people not re-upping) as credit to himself.
Clinton and Gore trimmed government, all right. But they misled the public by counting military jobs as government jobs. I run a library, and we were a Federal Depository back then...I remember reading it in some pamplets put out by the US GPO.
Sauron
IMHO, more damaging than 50 % of the force cuts has been the continuation of JTFs across the globe. What are we up to now? Still around 90 some odd JTFs which have never been closed out, but remain staffed? The number is still high I believe.
And that takes us back to Bart's comment and my question reference it: what kind of wars?
I understand your comment, but think we still have the capability to regenerate capacity given the national will, and time, to do so. Sadly, talk of "national will" would be probably be misconstrued as fascism these days. Considering how short-lived the impact of 9-11 was on many Americans, what concerns me is what it would take to generate anything approaching the will to win like we had back in '41.
LOL! Now that's a good one! ;-)
I recall it differently but if that's what gets you off- you go right ahead.
The way you make it sound we had a big queue of nations just chomping at the bit to get into Iraq and kick some Arab booty but the US was like 'No, sorry boys, we're going to go this one alone'. In a perfect world it would have happened like that I agree.
The fact is, we looked high and low for nations willing to help us but the list was very short and we gladly accepted help from the few that volunteered.
And look, don't ever come over to the UK and tell people the US went it alone in Iraq. The first British casualties were from friendly fire from US weaponry. You want to tell families who have lost their loved ones that they did not help the US in Iraq? Shame on you.
And furthermore, the war in Iraq is not won yet but it could still be lost. So spare us the 'we almost won singlehand...' Almost doesn't count for diddly squat.
This article is correct when it says that the US military is too small, and that our soldiers are deployed too often and too long.
It is wrong when it says that it's some kind of "tipping point" at which it will fall apart in frustrated chaos.
Our military is too professional for the latter to take place.
The reality of the Clinton cuts of the Army to 10 divisions from 18 divisions is sinking in. We had 18 divisions for just this kind of time. With 8 more divisions available the rotations and wear-and-tear on troops and equipment would not be nearly so pronounced.
Even if we had cut only to Bush 1's idea of a 15 division Army we would be in a far better position.
Our military is grossly undermanned and under equipted.
I don't know what you have been reading but the Bush, Clinton, Bush years have greatly weakened our war fighting ability.
If China were to attack Taiwan I doubt there is much military punch left in out bag to stop them.
Yes, but it's a lot smaller than it was under Reagan and GHWB--thanks to the Clintons for reducing its size so drastically so they could have a "peace dividend" to spend on more Democrat welfare.
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.