US forces stretched thin worldwide

ISN Security Watch ^ | November 16, 2006 | Carmen Gentile

[BlackbirdSST]

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.P>

Thanks for injecting some historical FACT. Blackbird.

[plenipotentiary]

The need for allies was not military, it was political.

[upcountryhorseman]

Aside from getting U. S. Forces out of Germany, Japan, and
any other WW 2 occupied country: the rest is BS! We should put The Air Force to work knocking out atomic facilities
in Iran.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Weren't most of the cuts in the size of the military during Bush I's presidency?"

SHort answer is no. I found some numbers via web search:

• 10 Army Divisions (1 million troops)
• 20 Air Force/Navy Wings (2,000 aircraft
• 121 Surface Ships/Attack Submarines
• 232 Strategic Bombers
• 13 Ballistic Subs (2,114 warheads)

[truth_seeker]

"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."

During Vietnam it was a "one in two" policy for draftees. Two year hitch, with one in Vietnam.

[George W. Bush]

Given our treatment by South Korea and the dangerously irresponsible behavior they've exhibited, I think we should pull out of there first. Let those radical Korean college students go out and guard their border with the North.

Japan needs more support and encouragement to assert itself militarily and develop its own nukes and antiballistic defenses.

[RightWhale]

Mobility is the key to modern warfare.

[George W. Bush]

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.

We hear this at times but I'd like to ask something: Bush has been in office with Republican majorities for six years and has piled up a vast debt, most of it discretionary spending. If Republicans are not responsible for military spending and force sizes, how can you blame Xlinton, out of office for almost six years? If Bush and the GOP congress isn't responsible now, having passed five budgets on Bush's watch, then will Bush finally be responsible on, say, the last day he's in the White House? Or will he, despite six years of holding the majority and suffering the worst terror attack in U.S. history, never be responsible for the size and readiness of the military?

[Robwin]

Not to worry. Any deficiency in the number of our military personnel is soon to be rectified by the Democrats as Charlie Rangel is poised to reinstate the draft. In fact, Charlie will see to it that all our young people will "serve" the state in some manner.

[quote]He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.[/quote] [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061119/ap_on_go_co/military_draft]link[/url]

[Robwin]

Sorry about the tags being wrong. Still haven't got that down quite right as yet. Anyway it is the thought that counts.

[Old_Mil]

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.

Anyone have any more information about this? Is this just active duty, or does it apply to the guard as well? If it does, it's going to destroy a lot of civilian careers.

[CBart95]

Each of you have odd ball commentary from resentments about the Clintons to notions about China attacking Taiwan to self-congratulating Brits being imbecilic about their own importance and reverting to unwarranted and unintended slights to their bravery and participation in the Iraq conflict...all of it goofy and off-the-wall and proof that this place occasionally attracts all manner of opinions,rarely cordial or good natured and sometimes offered in hostile and defensive terms.

Reception of that type of cordiality nets exactly what would be expected...nothing.

That of course is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for...having all of us locked in utter disagreement and anger with each other.

[George W. Bush]

That of course is exactly what the terrorists are hoping for...having all of us locked in utter disagreement and anger with each other.

Yeah, Bart, I'm sure the Muzzies just love having us reading FreeRepublic. They'd just hate it if we hung out at Kos or with the DUmmies.

On our worst day, we are exactly the kind of Americans the Religion Of Peace knows it can never smooth-talk or intimidate.

[gogogodzilla]

Actually, no... it isn't bullcrap.

We simply do not have the enough active duty military to fight two major theater wars at the same time.

That used to be the military standard up until this administration. We have, since then, not increased our forces to match our standard... but change the standard to meet our forces.

The current standard is to fight and win one major theater war... and 'hold the line' in a different theater war.

Of course, it'd be easier to fight North Korea if Rumsfield hadn't cancelled the Crusader artillery program... which was perfect for lobbing artillery into North Korea without having to face their surface-to-air missile defenses OR facing North Korean counter artillery fire.

And, yes, it'd be nice if the Air Force wasn't cutting 20,000 troops in the midst of a war and increasing global threats.

---

We've got far too many enemies that want to play and far too few troops to handle it. Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuala, and Lebanon-Hizbollah are as vocal and irritating as the are because they know that we can't handle many more problems.

We can't place 140,000 troops in Iraq, hunt for Bin Laden in Afganistan, invade Iran, obliterate North Korea, defend Taiwan from China, secure our oil supplies in Venezuala from Chavez, prevent Russia from embargoing Western Europes gas/oil supplies, shutdown the Hizbollah in Lebanon, maintain our troops in the Balkans, defend our southern border, and secure the world's shipping lanes without more troops and equipment and more investment into weapon R&D.

[gogogodzilla]

So, instead of increasing our military forces to match our requirements... you'd rather drop the requirements?

That's mighty supportive of the military there.

[gogogodzilla]

A draft would be great for the middle NCO ranks of the military...

...for there would be a massive ramp-up in promotions to supervise all the new personnel.

:-P

[dufekin]

Rangel's stupid pseudo-draft proposal violates the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against "involuntary servitude" for non-criminals. An actual draft of militarily necessary conscripts cannot violate the Constitution because it isn't a mutual-suicide pact.

[CBart95]

You demonstrate a remarkable grasp for the pervasive reach of terrorism but you seem mistakenly committed to a one prescription-fits-all cure,ie full frontal military confrontation. I know you must realize that it is more than a "one trick pony" situation and a full range of options are in play,even now.

It's the "know-nothing" opposition that has deliberately mischaracterized the scope of and the remedies to this array of ongoing conflict situations. With the aid of our enemy's propaganda and the willing collusion of our left-wing MSM the picture has been blurred and muddied to the point of virtual incomprehensibility.

Or so it would seem. If you and I can piece together the evidence that points clearly to an international conspiracy to bring down the power of the US on a worldwide basis, what do you suppose the administration is really doing about all of this razzel dazzel now in play? Do you think they think it would be a keen idea to publicize everything?...and telegraph our intentions to the enemy?

Me either.

Perhaps they fully believe that letting arm chair generals in chat rooms bloviate is a swell way to confuse the enemy's intelligence operatives? There seems to be no end of mindless speculation to go around?

Tell us what the ceremonial disgrace of canning Don Rumsfeld does to the Islamo-fascist mind. Do you think its a sign to them that we are losing our resolve?

Or are we merely useful idiots arguing among ourselves as to the adequacy of our armed services ability to lose this one like we did in Vietnam?

[CBart95]

ADD:

I refer you to a more comprehensive update by Victor Davis Hanson that rather remarkably brings our delimna into sharp focus just now.

I trust that you will find it useful:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/will_the_west_stumble.html

[Wonder Warthog]

"Each of you..."

Last time I looked, I was only one person, and, to the best of my knowledge, don't have a split personality, either.

As to the rest of your dis-jointed screed, I'm sure you think it means something, but damned if I can figure out what. Are you off your meds, or what??