Posted on 12/15/2006 6:58:38 AM PST by Man of the Right
Fair enough. So, how do you intend on making the Army bigger, when we're having enough trouble getting people to join or stay in? The military's showing a growing trend of recruiter misconduct (which they do severely punish, when caught), as well as raising the age limits for recruits, and offering reenlistment bonuses large enough to buy a new Escalade in cash.
That 'my way or the highway' line sounds tough, but we're not really in a position to be barking orders like that, if we want to keep the volunteer military volunteer. People are going to start opting out in greater numbers than we can sustain, if we don't get our act together.
Sure, expand the military. But that's not going to fix things in Iraq anytime soon. As stressful as it is on the troops going over there again and again, I would extend rotations to maintain relationships with the local populace. Personal relationships built up over time with locals is a good part of what's needed.
Au contraire' mon ami, the scant forces in Germany are vitally needed to keep an eye on the Balkans (thanks to Mr. Clinton) and the few we have in Korea help to keep the "Dear Leader" quiet.
Agreed.
And soldiers in the Reserve or Guard have even more options, because they have civilian jobs that they can prioritize above military service. They're set to walk and all they need is some asshole telling them "Love it or leave it!"
And, interestingly enough, one DOD/Army report showed that only 40% of soldiers had been deployed to either of the current combat theaters. Our Army is heavily dependent on support soldiers and support units, which are heavily tasked and even support other services in-theater.
We need additional combat brigades that can support the rotation and increase the down-times for returning units, allowing them to reconstitute, retrain and refurbish their equipment. If we don't, we're going to burn through enlisted soldiers and junior NCOs like never before.
Let the Koreans fend for themselves and pull the troops from the Balkins.
Expand rotations?!
You're kidding, right?
Current rotations are 12+ months and the down-times are getting shorter. Iraqi's don't give a damn about "personal" relationships with soldiers, they want to make sure that the US is there for the long-haul and burning through units and soldiers is gonna end that as surely as anything.
Actually, the size of the active U.S. Army is around 500k, with roughly the same amount in the Reserves and ARNG. Since much of that structure is combat support or combat service support, the actual amount of troops we have doing 'useful work' is very low, and they tend to get stuck with the lion's share of it.
Yep.
Remaining "forward deployed" forces in Korea and Europe serve two distinct purposes; "trip wire" and reaction. The mere presence of US troops keeps "Dear Leader" in line and having them on the ground makes it easier to provide delaying actions for follow on forces. If we didn't have soldiers in those theaters, we'd be MONTHS away from getting the first boots on the ground.
It is not "defeatist" to point out mistakes. We went into Iraq with way too few troops to do the job, pure and simple! The fault belongs to Rumsfeld and his stooges, such as Perle and Wolfowitz. Now, we're paying the price for the blunders made--BTW, most of us want to WIN in Iraq as the consequences of not doing so make one shutter in fear! But we're not going to be successful if the current strategic trend for fighting the GWOT continues--It is synonomous with seeing your favorite football team behind in the third quarter and facing a third-and-nine situation while the coach keeps calling for the same quarterback sneak running play that has been stopped six times already by the stacked defense!
I agree whole-heartedly. I would go further. The war against the Islamists will be won, decades in the future, by American Muslims promoting an alternative, more desirable future for their co-religionists. We are in a very early of this war. In order to win, we must fight the war on our terms on battlefields of our choosing. Our strengths are pinrcipally ideological, technological, and economic. In time, Iraq, like Vietnam, will be remembered as a diversion from successful war fighting. Ronald Reagan identified the Soviet Union's fatal flaw: The Communist system didn't work, and he exploited that weakness. A future more imaginative U.S. President who exploit the Islamists' weakness: They have no vision for a better future for Islamic peoples. Reagan didn't invade Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union: He didn't have to. It collapsed. Similarly, using Christian and Jewish Americans to invade Muslim countries is not a winning strategy.
I agree.
However, the larger questions are: How is the current Iraq strategy benefitting the U.S.? And how likely is it to be successful, given the constraints -- political and military.
Every armchair general says much the same thing but there are longstanding treaties in place preventing us from doing just that. Foreign economies have rested upon us having a military presence in Europe and Asia ever since the end of WWII, and the consequences of breaking treaties would likely spark a trade war we likely would lose.
Oh, please. There are scores to be settled. A lot of folks want to win those battles first. Then they'll get around to trying to win the real war, maybe.
The decay rate for political support for a campaign is known. I call Iraq a campaign rather than a war. What Johnson and Bush never understood is that a major war cannot be fought without political support in a democracy. So while it may take a decade or more to win in Iraq -- the progress to date doesn't provide encouragement -- the campaign cannot be sustained against the opposition of two out of three voters.
I agree.
I agree. The President of the United States told Congress and the American people that Saddam was close to possessing nuclear weapons. I figured he had to have had better intelligence that I did, so naturally I supported the invasion. I remember the Vietnam fiasco. I hoped we learned something from it. I was wrong. Bush cast himself as Johnson, and Rumsfeld as McNamara. In order to win the War on Terrorism, we need more skillful people in office.
1.4 million active duty servicemembers, plus 1.2 million reservists.
From globalsecurity.org:
US Army: 512,400 active, 148,442 mobilized guard/reserve, and 350,000 drilling guard/reserve.
Navy: 365,900 active, 6,508 reservists mobilized, no Navy National Guard.
Marines: 178,000 active, 9,717 mobilized reservists, no Marine Corps National Guard.
Air Force: 359,300 active (with plans to reduce that by 12,000 by 2009), 45,585 reservists / NG activated, 106,800 drilling guard/reserve.
The Army and the Marines clearly do the bulk of the heavy lifting in Iraq. So, you have about 848,000 soldiers and Marines available. At a 50-50 tooth to tail ratio (not bad, historically speaking), that gives you approximately 424,000 soldiers. 150,000 are in Iraq at any given time. So, at any time, you have 150k that just returned, 150k that are ready to go, and 150k that are in Iraq - thus adding up to 450,000... 26,000 more than are actually available to do such work.
Add in the fact that 50% of the US Army's combat power is in the National Guard, and you've got yourself a serious troop shortage.
Poppycock.
Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the rationale for providing free defense for our allies has perished. Withdrawing that protection would require them to fend more effectively for themselves, which means more military spending on their part. That doesn't leave room for a trade war with us.
Great plan. Have moving land mines and automated sniper machines blowing up kids and kittens for the nightly news. Excellent plan, really.
Thanks for your eloquent post.
Schoonamker has only 90,000 Reserves who have not served the statutory maximum 24 months in Iraq or Afghanistan. After that, presumably we call up the Campfire Girls.
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.