Posted on 12/05/2007 6:49:41 AM PST by RDTF
The Army's top general Tuesday acknowledged that his soldiers and their families are "stretched" and "stressed" by six years of war and will need a steady commitment of increased funding to keep the Army from sliding into the "hollow" force of the 1970s.
Gen. George Casey said the fight between Congress and the White House over the supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan makes his job more difficult and sends "a terrible signal" to the troops fighting the war.
In a presentation to the Brookings Institution, the Army chief of staff appeared to try to strike a balance by giving a candid description of the problems facing his service and what it needs to recover while denying the more dire warnings from some analysts and critics. But Casey emphasized that the strain on his troops and the wear and destruction of equipment from the current pace of deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are "unsustainable."
Casey predicted a decision in three or four months on whether the Army troop level in Iraq could be reduced below the current 15 combat brigades.
Even if the commitment to Iraq is reduced and the Army can meet its goal of adding 74,000 soldiers, he said it would take three or four years of effort and increased funding to restore a force that is capable of meeting the full range of military challenges.
Noting the additional $17 billion in Army funding that Congress provided last year to improve readiness, Casey said: "Getting the resources to reset the force is the difference between a hollow force and a force that's ready to do the next thing."
Asked about the ongoing dispute between President Bush and the Democratic leaders in Congress over providing $196.4 billion in additional supplemental war funding, Casey stated the obvious that "not having predictable, timely funding makes it harder for me to do my job." And, he added, "What's going on now sends a terrible signal to my soldiers and their families."
Casey noted that thousands of soldiers are returning from 15-month combat tours while Pentagon officials are warning about ending services at their home bases to divert money from the normal budget to the war.
Bush issued another demand Tuesday that Congress approve the additional war supplemental without the timeline for removing U.S. combat forces from Iraq that Democratic leaders are demanding.
The general, responding to a question, acknowledged that the Army is granting nearly twice as many "moral" waivers for recruits as it did five years ago, but said 80 percent of those are for misdemeanor offenses. "The notion out there that we're enlisting felons is not true," he said.
Casey stressed the need to reduce the pace of deployments so his troops could remain home more than a year. With such a rapid turnaround between combat tours, the Army is unable to train for anything but the current counter insurgency operations, he said.
It would require at least 18 months between deployments for the Army to train a force able to handle "the full spectrum of combat," which would include a conventional conflict against a major adversary, Casey added.
I have NEVER liked casey.
LLS
.
MEL’s -PASSION- sparked by -WE WERE SOLDIERS-
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1085111/posts
http://www.Freerepublic.com/~aloharonnie/
http://www.Freerepublic.com/~anita1/
.
Well, "here" as in Free Republic. I'm sure a lot of folks on "Daily Kos" and "DU" consider it worse than hollow.
But then, they're treasonous scum.
Your profile says:
"I am a southern California conservative.
Born and raised an Army brat, I did my tour of duty (1975-1980)"
Hmmm - seems to be a measurable difference between a 'southern California conservative" and northern Maine conservative...
Thank you for your service, but you seem to still be a 'brat' ;o)
Bless your son and the head of the Marines who want to redeploy some Marines to Afghanistan.
My grandson, 173rd Paratrooper, (son of a former Marine,) is in the deadliest area of Afghanistan, "Taliban Central" in the Korengal = over 500 firefights first 6 months, KIA/wounded rate 1 in 4! - they are in NEED of more boots on the ground...
It seems to be Casey who's balking on it - Territorial imperatives?
Time - PAST time = for the traitors in DC to fund our troops and time for Casey to put his ego in his back pocket.
Go Marines...
Thank You and GO PARATROOPERS!!!
I hope your grandson knows and sees that he has supporters back home.
[Mr] T
Taking an axe to wasteful military spending would be great, but there's a huge amount of bureaucratic entrenchment that will fight to the absolute bitter end than let itself be reformed. There's a lot the system could do on the inside to rehabilitate itself, but pork, inertia, and territorialism are very hard to overcome.
Either way, it's the guy on the combat patrol who suffers if he can't get spare parts or adequate training. That should be our concern.
During my tour in the 70’s I never recall any of my superior officers complaining and we, were treated like crap in the late 70’s for even being in the military.
Don’t know what branch you were in Joe, but the army was messed up in the early to mid 70s. In Korea we had race riots, black NCOs assaulting white officers, etc. It was ridiculous.
Asked about the ongoing dispute between President Bush and the Democratic leaders in Congress over providing $196.4 billion in additional supplemental war funding, Casey stated the obvious that “not having predictable, timely funding makes it harder for me to do my job.” And, he added, “What’s going on now sends a terrible signal to my soldiers and their families.”
_______
Why isn’t this the topic of all the articles about this briefing? Hmmmm.....
“...will need a steady commitment of increased funding...”
IMHO, Sorry to say that this sounds more like the Democrats (especially when talking about education) than it does about fixing the issues.
fight between Congress and the White House over the supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistan makes his job more difficult and sends “a terrible signal” to the troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
Democrats are not loyal to the Troops fighting the war.
See, THAT’s a speech I can agree with. The article twisted it.
I agree with the poster who said to beware ANY article that employs a series of one-word quotes.
It means that the person speaking took great pains NOT to put the word being quoted anywhere near WORDS that would express what the article is saying.
Also beware of any article that uses multiple “...” marks, especially within a single quote. Generally people have a reason for using all of their words, and removing them changes the meaning.
here is the actual author of the article:
Otto Kreisher
I can’t help but wonder about how they would view the stresses on the families during WWII? Some of those wives at home got a piece of mail once a month. We’re so spoiled.
Not only that, but I’d wager that the stress is compounded exponentially by the baloney that gets played out in the enemedia and by the Congress every day. Ugh!
EXACTLY! Media bias is ugly, isn’t it?
like i said in another post, carter gutted the military...having to strip aircraft for spare parts was totally asinine...and no fuel to fly ‘em with.....or tools to fix ‘em with....yeah, i remember those days...
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.